JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. RSA No. 132/2014 a/w CMPNo. 10036/2016, CMP(M) Nos. 1276 & 1277/2015. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.9.2012 passed by learned District Judge, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. It is seen that learned lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court. The trial Court vide judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 183/1 of 2003 on 22.1.2009 has decreed the suit and declared the plaintiffs as co-owners in possession of the suit land entered in Khewat No. 348, Kh. No. 68 measuring 2 bighas 10 biswas situated in Village Majra, Patti Naya Gaon, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, Distt. Sirmaur with proforma defendants and the entries qua suit land measuring 0-12 biswas showing defendant No. 1 in possession of the suit land were declared wrong, illegal, null and void. 2. The appeal stands admitted on 28.3.2014. However, after admission it transpired at the stage of service of the respondents that respondent No. 2 Prem Chand (plaintiff No. 2 in the trial Court) has expired on 28.8.1989 i.e. well before 28.10.2003, the day when the suit was instituted. The death certificate which has been produced by learned counsel representing the proposed legal representatives of respondent-plaintiff Prem Chand has been taken on record. Not only this, but one of the respondents herein, respondent No. 5 Gian Chand (respondent No. 3(c) in learned lower appellate Court) has also expired on 5.6.2009 i.e. during the pendency of the appeal before learned lower appellate Court. The suit, therefore, came to be decided without taking note of the death of Prem Chand, the deceased plaintiff whereas the appeal without taking note of the death of respondent No. 3(c) Gian Chand. Being so, the suit was filed at a stage when plaintiff No. 2 Prem Chand was no longer on the land of living and as such, the suit has been decreed without taking note of his death. Similarly, the appeal was also decided by learned lower appellate Court without taking note of the death of the respondent-plaintiff Prem Chand and also respondent No. 3(c) Gian Chand. The judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court is against a dead person i.e. respondent No. 3(c) said Sh. Gian Chand. The applications being CMP Nos. Similarly, the appeal was also decided by learned lower appellate Court without taking note of the death of the respondent-plaintiff Prem Chand and also respondent No. 3(c) Gian Chand. The judgment passed by learned lower appellate Court is against a dead person i.e. respondent No. 3(c) said Sh. Gian Chand. The applications being CMP Nos. 1276 and 1277 of 2015, as aforesaid, though have been filed for substitution of the legal representatives of deceased respondent-plaintiff No. 2 Prem Chand, who, as a matter of fact, has expired on the date of institution of the suit. There is no question of substitution of his legal representatives because the death has not occurred during the pendency of the suit and rather well before the institution thereof. The suit in the present form was not at all maintainable and otherwise also one of the plaintiffs Prem Chand was no more. Hence, the impugned judgment and decree is nullity and as such not legally sustainable. Above all, the judgment and decree under challenge in this appeal is only nullity being against a dead person i.e. respondent No. 3(c) Gian Chand, therefore, on this score also, the same is not legally sustainable. 3. In view of the law laid down by this Court, as and when the question of abatement of the suit or appeal arises, the same can only be gone into and decided by the Court where the suit or appeal was pending at the time of death of a party. It has been held so by this Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, 2015(2) Shim.L.C. 674 while applying the ratio of the judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Jagan Nath and others v. Ishwari Devi, 1988(2) Shim.L.C. 273 and Karam Chand and others v. Bakshi Ram and others, 2002(1) Shim.L.C. 9 . 4. On the death of a party to the suit or appeal and for want of consequential steps, suit/appeal abates because abatement is automatic after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an application to set aside the same or substitution of legal representatives of the deceased party. 4. On the death of a party to the suit or appeal and for want of consequential steps, suit/appeal abates because abatement is automatic after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing an application to set aside the same or substitution of legal representatives of the deceased party. In the case in hand, respondent-plaintiff No. 2 had expired on 28.8.1989, before filing the suit and respondent No. 5 herein Gian Chand (respondent No. 3(c) in lower appellate Court) has also expired during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court. The limitation prescribed for taking consequential steps and setting aside the abatement stands expired long back. 5. In view of the legal as well as factual position discussed supra, this Court is left with no option except to hold that the judgment and decree under challenge being against dead persons is nullity, hence not legally sustainable. 6. Consequently, the judgment and decree under challenge in this appeal, being against dead persons is nullity and as such quashed and set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to allow the appellant to take steps in accordance with law, including deletion of the name of respondent-plaintiff No.2, Prem Chand and impleadment of his legal heirs as party in the suit. The suit thereafter be decided afresh in accordance with law. Since someone has forged the signatures of deceased Prem Chand on the plaint and also Vakalatnama, therefore, this aspect is also left open to be gone into by learned trial Court and passing appropriate orders. The parties through learned Counsel representing them are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 4th January, 2017. 7. The appeal along with the applications stand disposed of accordingly. An authenticated copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial Court for compliance.