Madhya Pradesh High Court
Paras Chand Jain vs Alok Garg on 30 January, 2026
Author: Hirdesh
Bench: Hirdesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107
1 MP-6684-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIRDESH
ON THE 30th OF JANUARY, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 6684 of 2025
PARAS CHAND JAIN
Versus
ALOK GARG AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri N.K. Gupta- Senior Advocate with Shri Shatru Daman Singh
Bhadouriyia, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
ORDER
The instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner-decree holder challenging the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Seventh District Judge, Gwalior in Execution Case No. 400021 of 2023, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of abatement.
2. The instant miscellaneous petition has been renumbered from Civil Revision No. 105 of 2025, which was earlier disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th November, 2025. Prior to the disposal of the civil revision, it is found from the record that despite various efforts being made for service, including paper publication, the respondents could not be served. Therefore, they were treated as served, and the counsel Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 2 MP-6684-2025 appearing for respondent No. 7 sought time to file Vaklatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7. As a result, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri SS Bhadauria, learned counsel, appears for respondent No.7 in the present matter. The other respondents are deemed to be served, as despite service of notice, no one appears on their behalf.
3. A few facts giving rise to the present miscellaneous petition, as narrated therein, are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants in respect of land situated in Survey Nos. 1113 to 1118, ad- measuring 8 Bigha 8 Biswa at Village Morar, District Gwalior. It was pleaded that earlier, a suit for partition was filed between Ajay Kumar, Jagat Narayan, Lalta Prasad, Murarilal, Bhagwati Prasad, Omprakash, Jaiprakash, Kailash Prasad, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Usha, Anita, and Sangita, which was settled by way of compromise. Under the said compromise, Lalta Prasad acquired a 1/5th share in the property. After the death of Lalta Prasad, his legal representatives, namely Smt. Tara Garg and her sons Rakesh, Rajeev, and Raghav Garg, succeeded to his share. As per the plaint pleadings, Smt. Tara Garg, along with Rajesh and Rajeev, appointed Raghav Garg as their power of attorney holder vide registered power of attorney dated 16.10.1991. Similarly, Kailash Prasad and his son also appointed Raghav Garg as their power of attorney holder vide registered power of attorney dated 23.01.1992. Thereafter, Raghav Garg entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.11.1999 with the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. Since the agreement was not honoured, the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking specific Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 3 MP-6684-2025 performance.
4. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise application was filed, wherein it was agreed that Raghav Garg would develop the land and sell plots to various persons, but no sale deed would be executed without the written consent of both plaintiffs, namely Paras Chand Jain and Naveen Jain. It was further agreed that the income generated from the sale of plots would be shared equally, i.e., 50% each between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that all sale deeds would specifically mention that they were executed in compliance with the compromise decree. The compromise was accepted by the trial Court, and a decree was passed on 23.09.2001. However, after the passing of the compromise decree, the defendants failed to comply with its terms and continued to alienate the property without consent or intimation to the decree holder. Consequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 26.05.2004 and thereafter filed an execution application. During the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors repeatedly filed applications raising objections to stall execution, all of which were dismissed.
5. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, judgment debtors Ashok Garg and Tara Garg died. Applications were filed by the petitioner for deletion of their names, stating that some of their legal representatives were already on record. After considering objections, the executing Court allowed the deletion of their names and permitted continuation of execution proceedings against the existing legal representatives, holding that the estate of the deceased judgment debtors was sufficiently represented. Vide order dated 15.10.2015, the name of Tara Garg Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 4 MP-6684-2025 was deleted. Despite this, an application under Section 151 CPC dated 07.03.2014 was filed by the judgment debtors contending that the execution had abated as all legal representatives were not impleaded. The petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that the issue had already been decided earlier and that the existing legal representatives adequately represented the estate. The execution proceedings continued for several years. During the pendency, an application under Section 151 CPC was also filed to restrain alienation of property, which was dismissed on 09.12.2014. The said order was challenged by Paras Chand Jain in W.P. No. 391/2015, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order of status quo on 20.01.2015. Subsequently, by order dated 19.02.2024, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the executing court to conclude the execution proceedings within six months while continuing the interim protection. However, vide impugned order dated 07.11.2024, the executing Court allowed the application filed by the judgment debtors under Section 151 CPC and dismissed the execution proceedings as abated on the ground that all legal representatives of Ashok Garg and Tara Garg were not impleaded. Hence, this petition.
6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order is manifestly illegal, perverse, and contrary to settled law. It is contended that the executing court committed a grave error in holding that the execution proceedings had abated, despite the fact that legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors Ashok Garg and Smt. Tara Garg were already on record and were representing their estate. It is submitted that upon the death of Ashok Garg, an application for deletion of his name was filed, and at that Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 5 MP-6684-2025 stage also, an objection regarding non-impleadment of all legal representatives was raised. The executing court, after considering the objection, allowed deletion of his name and permitted continuation of execution proceedings against the existing legal representative, namely Anant Kumar Garg. The said order attained finality and could not have been revisited. Similarly, upon the death of Smt. Tara Garg, her sons Rakesh Garg, Rajeev Garg, and Raghav Garg were already on record as judgment debtors No. 7 to 9. They sufficiently represented her estate, and therefore there was no occasion to hold that the proceedings had abated. It is further contended that settled law provides that where some of the legal representatives are already on record and sufficiently represent the estate of the deceased, proceedings do not abate. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments in Idol Shri Madhavnarayanji Temple Madanmohanlalji vs. Narayandas Shrikishan and Others , reported in 1966 AIR (MP) 79; Laxminarayan vs. Benibhai Bhikabhai , 1958 Supreme (MP) 92; Ramdass and Another vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1971) 1 SCC 460; and Mahabir Prasad vs. Jage Ram and Others , (1971) 1 SCC 265.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the executing court failed to consider its own earlier orders permitting deletion of names and continuation of proceedings, and was bound by those orders. The impugned order does not deal with or even advert to the earlier orders, rendering it perverse. It is also contended that the judgment debtors deliberately delayed the execution proceedings by filing frivolous Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 6 MP-6684-2025 applications, including the application under Section 151 CPC filed in 2014, which remained pending for nearly ten years. It is submitted that merely because this Court fixed a timeline of six months to conclude execution proceedings, the executing court mechanically allowed the said application to dispose of the matter, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Reliance has also been placed on Mohd. Hussain (Dead) by LRs vs. Gopibai and Others , reported in (2008) 3 SCC 233, to submit that all legal representatives are not necessary parties if the estate is sufficiently represented. It is thus prayed that the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed in Execution Case No. 400021 of 2013 by the Seventh District Judge, Gwalior be set aside and the application filed by the respondents under Section 151 CPC be dismissed, with a direction to proceed with execution in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7, judgment debtor, opposed the petition and submitted that the executing court has rightly dismissed the execution proceedings. It is contended that upon the death of Ashok Garg and Smt. Tara Garg, all their legal representatives were not brought on record and therefore the execution proceedings stood abated. It is submitted that the estate of the deceased judgment debtors was not properly represented and, therefore, continuation of execution proceedings was not permissible in law. It is submitted that abatement goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage. It is further argued that earlier orders permitting deletion of names cannot override mandatory provisions of law and no illegality has been committed by the executing court while allowing the application under Section 151 CPC. Hence, dismissal of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 7 MP-6684-2025 petition is prayed for.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The core issue for consideration is whether the execution proceedings could have been dismissed as abated on account of non- impleadment of all legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors, in view of the provisions of Order XXII Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. Order XXII Rule 12 CPC specifically provides that nothing contained in Rules 3, 4, and 8 of Order XXII shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. The effect of Rule 12 is that the concept of abatement, as applicable to suits and appeals, does not strictly apply to execution proceedings. Death of a judgment debtor does not result in automatic abatement of execution proceedings, and the executing court is empowered to proceed against the estate of the deceased judgment debtor.
12. The law is well settled that in execution proceedings, if some of the legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor are already on record and they sufficiently represent the estate, the execution does not abate. In Mahabir Prasad (supra), the Supreme Court held that proceedings do not abate if the estate of the deceased is substantially represented. A similar view has been taken in Ramdass (supra).
13. Similarly, this Court in the case of Idol Shri Madhavnarayanji Temple Madanmohanlalji (supra) has categorically held that abatement principles are not to be applied mechanically in execution proceedings and that representation of the estate is the determinative factor. The same Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 8 MP-6684-2025 principle has been reiterated in Laxminarayan (supra) . Also, in the case of Mohd. Hussain (Dead) by LRs (supra) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that all legal representatives are not necessary parties if the estate of the deceased is adequately represented by those already on record.
14. In the present case, the record clearly shows that upon the death of Ashok Garg and Smt. Tara Garg, the executing court had earlier passed orders permitting deletion of their names and allowed continuation of execution proceedings against existing legal representatives after recording a finding that the estate of the deceased was sufficiently represented. Those orders attained finality and were never challenged. The executing court, while passing the impugned order dated 07.11.2024, has failed to consider its own earlier orders and has reopened an issue which already stood concluded. Such an approach is contrary to settled principles of judicial discipline and renders the impugned order unsustainable. This Court finds substance in the submission of the petitioner that the executing court, merely to comply with the time limit fixed by this Court, has mechanically allowed the application under Section 151 CPC without proper appreciation of the law governing execution proceedings and the effect of Order XXII Rule 12 CPC.
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 suffers from a manifest error of law and jurisdictional infirmity, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Seventh District Judge, Gwalior, in Execution Case No. 400021 of 2013 is hereby set aside. The execution Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:4107 9 MP-6684-2025 proceedings are restored to their original number. The matter is remanded to the executing court with a direction to proceed with the execution application in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, and to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is clarified that the executing court shall not be influenced by the earlier impugned order and shall decide the execution proceedings independently on merits in accordance with law.
16. The miscellaneous petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(HIRDESH) JUDGE MKB Signature Not Verified Signed by: MAHENDRA BARIK Signing time: 04-Feb-26 04:20:23 PM