Proceedings in execution of a decree or order are not subject to the provisions of Section 50 or Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, and an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor on record in such proceedings does not abate or lapse if not brought within a particular time.

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the Order of the Subordinate judge Visakhapatnam, accepting an application to add the legal representatives of the second judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 80 of 1933. It arises in the following circumstances. In execution of a decree obtained by the present respondents against three persons including the predecessors-in- interest of the appellants, some of the properties belonging to the three judgmentdebtors were brought to sale on 16th August, 1954 and were purchased by the decree-holders themselves. The sale was confirmed on 20th September, 1954. Sometime later, the decree-holder-auction-purchasers filed a petition in the District munsifs Court, Rajam, for delivery of possession of these properties making all the judgment-debtors parties to that application. It may be mentioned here that the decree was transferred to the District Munsifs Court, Rajam, for execution, as the properties of the judgment-debtors were situate within the jurisdiction of that Court. It is for that reason that the application for delivery was presented in that Court. Meanwhile, the second judgment-debtor seems to have died. The auction-purchasers coming to know of it, filed the petition in the Sub-Court that passed the decree which has given rise to the present appeal, for adding the appellants as the legal representatives of the deceased second judgment-debtor under section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code. This was opposed by the judgment-debtors on the ground that section 50, civil Procedure Code is inapplicable to the instant case. The trial Court negativing this contention allowed the petition and ordered the legal representatives of the second judgment-debtor to be brought on record. It is this judgment that is now under appeal. The argument presented by Sri Dikshitulu, learned counsel for the appellants is that as the application to bring the legal representatives on record was not filed within three years of the death of the judgment-debtor the relief prayed for ought not to have been granted. It is urged by the learned counsel that as no period of limitation is prescribed for delivery of possession of the properties the residuary article, i. e. , Article 181 of the Limitation Act governs such a case and since in this case the application for delivery impleading the proper persons as parties thereto was not filed within the time contemplated by Article 181, it should have been rejected. The fact that the application for delivery was made in the District munsips Court, Rajam, against a dead person would be of no avail to the auctionpurchasers as in law it does not amount to an application for delivery, and it is only when the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor are brought on record that the petition under Article 181 must be deemed to have been presented, proceeds the argument of Sri Dikshitulu.

( 2 ). WE are not persuaded that this objection is substantial. It may be that Article 181 governs applications of this kind. But the only requirement of that Article is that it should be preferred within three years. It does not contemplate as to who should be impleaded as parties thereto. It is not disputed that the application for delivery of possession was filed within three years of the confirmation of sale, impleading all the judgment-debtors one of whom died by that time. What we have now to consider is whether this is fatal to the application. The provision of law which deals with the addition of legal representatives of a deceased party is Order 22, Civil Procedure Code. That Order lays down that if the legal representatives are not brought on record within the time specified therein, the proceedings would abate. A perusal of that Order reveals that it applies only to suits and appeals and is inapplicable to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. Sri Dikshitulu maintains that the fact that Order 22, rule 12, Civil Procedure code, takes an execution application out of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document