JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 28.03.2023 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Godda in Civil Misc. Appeal No.01 of 2018 whereby the said appeal was allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Court in Title Suit No.23 of 2010 has been recalled and direction has been issued to implead the opposite parties as party in Title (P) Suit No.23 of 2010 and after giving proper opportunity to both the sides pass judgment in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Pankaj Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Title Partition Suit No.23 of 2010 was instituted for partition of the land in question and defendant No.1 was Amin Kapri. He submits that he has appeared before the learned Court and filed the documents and all of a sudden, he has amended the suit and thereafter the suit was decided by the judgment dated 07.07.2015. He submits that thereafter a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 was filed by the legal heirs/successors of Amin Kapri, who has left for his heavenly abode on 10.07.2013 to recall the judgment and decree and to implead them as a party, however the learned Court has been pleased to reject the same by order dated 17.07.2018 which was challenged in civil miscellaneous appeal which was decided by learned appellate court by order dated 28.03.2023 by which the ex-parte judgment has been set aside and the said suit has been restored and the direction has been issued to implead legal heirs/successors of defendant No.1 and after providing opportunity to decide the suit afresh. He submits that the defendant No.1 has left the suit and has not taken any proper steps and in view of that the said order passed by the learned appellate court is not in accordance with law. 4. He submits that the defendant No.1 has left the suit and has not taken any proper steps and in view of that the said order passed by the learned appellate court is not in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 submits that they are the legal heirs/successors of Amin Kapri, who has left for his heavenly abode and in view of that the said petition was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and learned trial court has wrongly rejected, however, the learned appellate court has allowed the same considering that they are the necessary party. 5. If a legal representative adopts that alternative course of action, it cannot possibly be said that his option to be governed by the decree is against the law or any concept of public policy or purpose, or the public morality. It is thus a matter entirely at the discretion of the legal representative of a deceased respondent against whom a decree has been passed after his death to decide whether he will raise the question that the decree has become a nullity, at the appropriate time, namely, during the course of the hearing of any appeal that may be filed by the other party, or to abandon that obvious technical objection and fight the appeal on the merits. A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of Kavarampeta Venkataiah and others v. Gayatri Educational Society and others, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 555 , wherein, paragraph 6 of the judgment passed in the case of N. Jayaram Reddy v. LAO, reported in (1979) 3 SCC 578 was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Paragraph 8 of the judgment passed in the case of Kavarampeta Venkataiah and others (supra) reads as under: “8. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in N.Jayaram Reddy v. LAO, to submit that if an order was passed against a dead person, the representatives of such deceased person could either treat the order or decree to be a nullity or choose to challenge the order on merits. The relevant observations of this Court in said decision were:- “6. The relevant observations of this Court in said decision were:- “6. The basic fact remains that a decree against a dead person is treated as a nullity because it cannot be allowed to operate against his legal representative when he was never brought on the record to defend the case. Any other view would not be possible or permissible for it would fasten on him a liability for which he did not have any hearing. So while the law treats such a decree as a nullity qua the legal representative of the deceased defendant or respondent, there is nothing to prevent him from deciding that he will not treat the decree as a nullity, but will abide by it as it stands, or as it may be mollified thereafter on appeal. If a legal representative adopts that alternative or course of action, it cannot possibly be said that his option to be governed by the decree is against the law or any concept of public policy or purpose, or the public morality. It is thus a matter entirely at the discretion of the legal representative of a deceased respondent against whom a decree has been passed after his death to decide whether he will raise the question that the decree has become a nullity, at the appropriate time, namely, during the course of the hearing of any appeal that may be filed by the other party, or to abandon that obvious technical objection and fight the appeal on the merits. He may do so either because of his faith in the strength of his case on the merits, or because of incorrect legal advice, or for the reason that he may not like to rely on a mere technical plea, or because in the case of cross-appeals, he may have the impression that bringing the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record in an appeal by a co-appellant will enure for the benefit of or be sufficient for purposes of the cross- appeal. An abandonment of a technical plea of abatement and the consequential dismissal of the appeal, is therefore a matter at the discretion of the legal representative of the deceased respondent and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. An abandonment of a technical plea of abatement and the consequential dismissal of the appeal, is therefore a matter at the discretion of the legal representative of the deceased respondent and there is no justification for the argument to the contrary. It is equally futile to argue that an appellate court is denuded of its jurisdiction to hear an appeal in which one of the respondents has died and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone merely because no application has been made to bring his legal representative on the record when no objection to that effect is raised by anyone.” 6. In view of the above, legal heirs/successors cannot be allowed to be remediless and the said order is a nullity as the same has been passed against the dead persons, who are the defendant No.1 and opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs/successors of defendant No.1. 7. In light of the above proposition of law where the suit was decided against a dead person being defendant No.1 and it has come into the knowledge of the legal heirs/successors they have filed the said petition which has been rejected by the learned Court and the learned appellate court has allowed the same. There is no illegality in the order of the learned appellate court, as such this petition is dismissed. 8. The petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 will appear before the learned Court where the matter is pending.