( 1 ) A. Rangappa obtained a money decree against the respondent and he also filed E. P. No. 50/83 to execute the decree. Pending execution, he died on 13-11-1983 intestate leaving behind him, his son the first petitioner, his widow the 2nd petitioner and three daughters, petitioners Nos. 3 to 5. They filed E. A. No. 46/84 under O. 22, R. 3. C. P. C. to bring them on record as legal representatives, so as to enable them to proceed with the execution of the decree. The court below dismissed the application holding that they did not obtain succession certificate and under S. 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for short the act placing reliance on a decision reported in S. Rajyalakshmi v. S. Sitamahalakshmi, AIR 1976 Andh Pra 361. Hence this revision.

( 2 ) SRI Suryanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent while supporting the order passed by the court below contends that the respondent is entitled to protect himself from resisting the application in the absence of any succession certificate granted by a competent court declaring the persons to be entitled to the debt in execution. Such succession certificate not having been filed the petitioners are not entitled to come on record. He placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Ganeshmal v. Anand Kanwar, AIR 1968 Raj 273. He seeks to distinguish the judgement of the Division Bench case reported in A. Mabukhan v. Rajamma, AIR 1963 Andh Pra 69, contending that this court take into account the language of S. 214 (1) (a) of the Act and the words "so entitled to" and, therefore, all the other courts have fallen in line with the Rajasthan case. Accordingly the ratio of the Division Bench Judgement of the Rajasthan High Court is to be preferred. I am unable to agree. Section 214 (1) (a) of the Act is not relevant for the purpose of this case since the suit has already been decreed. The relevant clause is Sub-Sec. (1) (b) of S. 214 of the Act which postulates thus :section 214 : (1) No court shall - (a) X X X X X X X X X (b) proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of. (i) and (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) a succession certificate granted under part X and having the debt specified therein, or. . . . . . . . . . . . The rest of the clauses are not necessary. Hence they are omitted. A reading of this Sub-Section should postulate that a person who claims that he is entitled to execute the decree from a debtor, the court shall not execute the decree unless the person claiming produce, a succession certificate enjoined under this provision. The question is whether a decree holder on this filing an execution application, but before full satisfaction is recorded, dies intestate, whether his legal representatives are entitled to come on record to proceed with the execution ? Order XXII, R. 3, C. P. C. postulates that "where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surving plaintiff or plaintiff alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to sue survives, the court on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. Therefore, when cause of action for execution of the decree survives one of the legal representatives or all the legal representatives of the deceased may be made a party and the execution proceedings shall be proceeded with. The question is whether a succession certificate as enjoined in S. 214 (1) (b) of the Act is necessary for continuation of these execution proceedings. This question squarely has arisen in the case in Mabhkuan v. Rajamma (supra) A Division Bench of this court speaking through Sri Chandra Reddy Chief Justice (as he then was) has considered the effect of the provisions and held thus :"it