OMPM/269/2024 on 13 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP (M) No. : 269 of 2024

Decided on : 13.10.2026

National Highways Authority of India .....Appellant Versus Basant Ram & Others .....Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the applicant : Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. Munish Kumar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3, and 7, as well as for proposed LRs 6(i) to 6(v). Respondents No.4 and 5, are stated to have expired. Virender Singh, Judge

(Oral) Applicant­National Highways Authority of India has preferred the accompanying appeal against the award dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Court of learned District Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in Case No.23 of 2019, titled as ‘National Highways Authority of India versus Basant Ram & Others’.

2. Since, the appeal is barred by limitation, as such, the present application has been filed for condonation of delay.

3. When notices of the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, were issued to the respondents, it transpired that respondent No.4­Kanshi Ram expired on 14.06.2020, when the lis was pending before the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, whereas, respondent No.5­Jeet Ram, expired on 24.02.2014, when the lis was pending before the learned Arbitrator. Meaning thereby, the award has been passed against a dead person, as, no efforts have been made by the applicant­appellant to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent No.4 Kanshi Ram and respondent No.5 Jeet Ram.

4. Since, the deaths had taken place, when the lis was pending, before the learned District Judge, as well as, before the learned Arbitrator, as such, the award passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, as well as, by the learned Arbitrator, for or against the dead persons is nullity.

5. My this view is being guided by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Gurnam Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. Vs. Gurbachan Kaur (Dead) by

Legal Representatives’ (2017) 13 SCC 414. It is apt to reproduce para 21 of the judgment, as under:­ “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’.”

6. In view of the above, this Court is left with no option, but, to set aside the award dated 09.07.2018, passed by the learned Arbitrator in Case No.378 of 2014, titled as Basant Ram & Others versus LAC, as well as the award passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur on 15.12.2023, in Arbitration No.23 of 2019, titled as NHAI versus Basant Ram & Others, and to remand the matter back to the learned Arbitrator, as well as, to the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent No.4­Kanshi Ram and respondent No.5 Jeet Ram.

7. Since, the lis was pending from the year 2014, as such, it is expected to decide the matter, within a period of four months.

8. With these observations, the awards dated 09.07.2018 and 15.12.2023, passed by the learned Arbitrator, and learned District Judge, respectively, are set aside.

9. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear, before the learned Arbitrator, on 3rd November, 2026.

10. All pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand disposed of. Record be sent back, immediately.

( Virender Singh )

Judge October 13, 2026 (ps)