JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. When this appeal was taken up for consideration, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant informs the Court that one of the respondents in appeal, i.e. respondent No. 3, namely, Onkar Singh, in fact died during the pendency of the Civil Suit, in which, Onkar Singh was the plaintiff and no steps were taken to bring on record his legal representatives on record. He further submits that the judgment and decree was passed by the learned Trial Court in the face of record being defective and thereafter, in appeal also, this defect was not cured and judgment and decree stood passed by the learned Appellate Court, though in favour of a dead person, as the factum of death of said party was neither brought to the notice of learned Trial Court nor the learned Appellate Court. Therefore, he submits that the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are a nullity and are liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the learned Trial Court which may proceed with the same, in accordance with law. 2. Learned Counsel representing the respondents submits that it is a matter of record that Onkar Singh had died during the pendency of the civil suit, however, he submits that the judgments and decrees passed by learned Courts below not being against the interest of the deceased person were sustainable in law. 3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in my considered view, the contention of learned Counsel for the represented respondents has no legal force in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurnam Singh (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others versus Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by Legal Representatives, (2017) 13 SCC 414 , in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has unambiguously held that judgment/order passed in favour of against a dead person is a nullity. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "(16) It is not in dispute that the appellant and the two respondents expired during the pendency of the second appeal. In the said judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "(16) It is not in dispute that the appellant and the two respondents expired during the pendency of the second appeal. It is also not in dispute that no steps were taken by any of the legal representatives representing the dead persons and on whom the right to sue had devolved to file an application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for short, 'the Code') for bringing their names on record in place of the dead persons to enable them to continue the lis. (17) The law on the point is well settled. On the death of a party to the appeal, if no application is made by the party concerned to the appeal or by the legal representatives of the deceased on whom the right to sue has devolved for substitution of their names in place of the deceased party within 90 days from the date of death of the party, such appeal abates automatically on expiry of 90 days from the date of death of the party. In other words, on 91st day, there is no appeal pending before the Court. It is "dismissed as abated". (18) Order 22 Rule 3(2) which applies in the case of the death of plaintiff/appellant and Order 22 Rule 4(3) which applies in the case of defendant/respondent provides the consequences for not filing the application for substitution of legal representatives by the parties concerned within the time prescribed. These provisions read as under:- 18.1 Order 22 Rule 3(2) "3.(2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1) the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff." 18.2 Order 22 Rule 4(3) "4, (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant." (19) In the case at hand, both the aforementioned provisions came in operation because the appellant and the two respondents expired during the pendency of second appeal and no application was filed to bring their legal representatives on record. As held above, the legal effect of the non- compliance of Rules 3(2) and 4(3) of Order 22, therefore, came into operation resulting in dismissal of second appeal as abated on the expiry of 90 days from 10.05.1994, i.e., on 10.08.1994. The High Court, therefore, ceased to have jurisdiction to decide the second appeal which stood already dismissed on 10.08.1994. Indeed, there was no pending appeal on and after 10.08.1994. (20) In our considered view, the appeal could be revived for hearing only when firstly, the proposed legal representatives of the deceased persons had filed an application for substitution of their names and secondly, they had applied for setting aside of the abatement under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code and making out therein a sufficient cause for setting aside of an abatement and lastly, had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the substitution application under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of the Code beyond the statutory period of 90 days. If these applications had been allowed by the High Court, the second appeal could have been revived for final hearing but not otherwise. Such was not the case here because no such applications had been filed. (22) It is a fundamental principle of law laid down by this Court in Kiran Singh's case (supra) that a decree passed by the Court, if it is a nullity, its validity can be questioned in any proceeding including in execution proceedings or even in collateral proceedings whenever such decree is sought to be enforced by the decree holder. The reason is that the defect of this nature affects the very authority of the Court in passing such decree and goes to the root of the case. This principle, in our considered opinion, squarely applies to this case because it is a settled principle of law that the decree passed by a Court for or against a dead person is a "nullity" (See-N. Jayaram Reddy and Anr. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578, Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Anr., (1998) 5 SCC 567 and Amba Bai and Ors. Vs. Gopal and Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 570 )." 4. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool, (1979) 3 SCC 578, Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Anr., (1998) 5 SCC 567 and Amba Bai and Ors. Vs. Gopal and Ors., (2001) 5 SCC 570 )." 4. In my considered view, what has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in above case referred to supra shall mutatis mutandi also apply to the proceedings in a Civil Suit. 5. In view of above, this appeal is allowed and judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Court below, i.e. judgment and decree dated 04.05.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Indora, District Kangra, in Civil Suit No. 207/2012 and judgment and decree dated 06.12.2018, passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 7-1/xiii/2016, are ordered to be set aside, though not on merit. Case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with the direction to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 6. At this stage, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents may be granted the liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned Trial Court to bring on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 3 herein. The only observation, which this Court can make is that in case any such application is filed before the learned Trial Court by the plaintiffs therein, then appropriate orders be passed thereupon after hearing the other party in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.