Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[8]. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

[9]. In V. Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali, 1998(1) RCR (Rent) 340, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that applicability of Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order 22 CPC has been excluded from the execution 6 of 10 proceedings. The normal principle arising in a suit before the decree is passed in the context of abatement of suit is not applicable to the cases of death of decree holder or judgment debtor in execution proceedings. No limitation is prescribed for bringing legal representatives on record. The execution petition cannot be dismissed in default in their absence except in the case where the application is not filed within the time prescribed by the Court itself. In N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman Sahib Vs. N.C. Mohd. Ismail Saheb and others, 1966 AIR (SC) 792, it was held that under Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 CPC, the decree passed against the persons impleaded as legal heirs, binds the estate even though other persons interested in the estate were not brought on the record. Ordinarily the Court does not regard a decree binding upon a person who was not impleaded therein, but there is an exception to this rule, however aforesaid exception is a recognized exception. Para No.14 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-