Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

05. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiffs/respondents, at the outset, submitted that there could be no application of the laws of limitation in execution cases and referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Uthirapathi Vs. Ashrab Ali & Ors., reported in (1998) 3 SCC 148, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if death of decree holder or judgment debtor takes place during pendency of the execution proceedings, no time limit is prescribed for bringing on record the legal representative of the deceased and they could be brought on record at any time and Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1411 of 2024 dt.09-04-2025 the execution proceeding would not abate but will remain pending. Learned counsel further submitted that Order 22 Rule- 12 of the Code makes it amply clear that Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order 22 of the Code shall not apply to proceedings in execution of the decree or order. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that even in the case of death or absence of the decree holder, the execution proceedings cannot be dismissed in default. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have been trying to linger on the matter as the petitioners would not be affected in any manner, since the persons being sought to be substituted belong to the family of the mortgagors and are not the family members of the mortgagee. Recounting the chronology of events, learned counsel further submitted that petitioners represent the defendants 1st set/judgment debtors. By the impugned order dated 02.09.2024, the learned executing has ordered for deletion and/or substitution of some of the deceased decree holders and judgment debtors and substitution of their legal heirs as also for correcting some typographical errors and minor's status of some of the parties who have attained majority wherever required for effective adjudication and disposal of the execution case. The learned counsel stressed that in so far as main contesting judgment debtors/defendant 1st set are Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1411 of 2024 dt.09-04-2025 concerned, they are not going to be affected in any manner by the impugned order and they have got no locus standi to approach this Court in the present civil miscellaneous petition as they are not affected parties. Learned counsel further submitted that the execution case arises out of a redemption suit filed for redeeming two mortgage deeds executed by one Mahendra Missir in favour of Nandlal Ojha and others vide mortgage deeds dated 03.07.1926. The plaintiffs of the suit claimed to have purchased major part of the mortgagor's interest and filed the present suit for redemption wherein there were five sets of defendants out of which defendants 1st and 2nd sets represented mortgagees' interest whereas defendants 3rd, 4th and 5th sets represented original mortgagor's interest and the suit was numbered as Title Suit No. 53 of 1968. The defendants 1st set contested the suit and the said title suit was dismissed on 21.09.1987. The Title Appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents bearing No. 147 of 1987 against the judgment and decree of Title Suit No. 53 of 1968 was allowed on 25.08.2000 and preliminary decree was passed. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants 1st set and others filed Second Appeal No. 400 of 2000, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. In the Title Suit No. 53 of 1968, final decree was Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1411 of 2024 dt.09-04-2025 prepared on 12.08.2008 and for execution of the same, Execution Case No. 05 of 2008 has been filed and is still pending. In the said Second Appeal, an application for injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of the Code was filed and an order for maintaining status quo over the suit property has been passed and the proceeding before the learned subordinate court was not stayed and this fact was subsequently made clear by this Court in second appeal itself. So, the orders passed in second appeal do not restrain the executing court from proceeding and there is no order of stay of execution proceeding by this Court. The present petitioners had earlier filed a petition under Section 47 of the Code on 21.05.2011 objecting to the executability of the decree and praying for stay of the further proceeding of execution case. But the said application was rejected vide order dated 03.09.2016 and the said order became final as it remained unchallenged. Learned counsel further submitted that further development took place in Title Appeal No. 44 of 2008 and in the second appeal whereby the Title Appeal No. 44 of 2008 was dismissed in default and the application filed by the petitioners seeking stay of the execution proceeding has been dismissed as withdrawn.

Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1411 of 2024 dt.09-04-2025 "8. We may state that Order 22 of the Code is applicable to the pending proceedings in a suit. But the conflicting claims of legal representatives can be decided in execution proceedings in view of the principles of Rule 5 of Order 22. This Court in a judgment in V. Uthirapathi v.

Ashrab Ali [V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali, (1998) 3 SCC 148] held that the normal principle arising in a suit--before the decree is passed--that the legal representatives are to be brought on record within a particular period is not applicable to cases of death of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 153, paras 11-14) "11. Order 22 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: