ORDER :- Petitioners, who were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased-judgment debtor in an E.P. in a decree for recovery of possession, filed this revision petition questioning the order directing delivery of possession of the decree schedule property to the Decree-Holder (respondent).

2. The admitted facts are, respondent obtained a decree against B. Anandam and others for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property, on 26-8-1967. Appeal and Second Appeal against that decree were dismissed on 5-4-1971 and 28-8-1973 respectively. Thereafter, decree-holder filed E.P. No. 40 of 1975 on 29-8-1975, seeking delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. When the wife of B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, caused obstruction, decree-holder filed E.A. No.321 of 1979 for removal of the obstruction, which was allowed on 21-3-1990. Questioning the said order, B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, filed A.S. No. 66 of 1990, which was dismissed on 12-4-1996, whereupon he preferred CMSA No. 21 of 1996 to this Court. During the pendency of the said CMSA, B. Anandam, the judgment debtor, died on 26-8-2001. So his wife came on record as his legal representative in CMP No. 22342 of 2001, dated 28-11-2001. Thereafter she died on 28-8-2002. Hence, revision petitioners came on record as her legal representatives. Thereafter, the said CMSA No. 21 of 1996 was dismissed on 5-2-2004. Petition seeking a review of the said order also was dismissed on 19-6-2005. In view of the death of the judgment debtor, B. Anandam, respondent decree-holder filed E.A. No. 46 of 2005 in E.P. No. 40 of 1975 to implead the revision petitioners as respondents 5 and 6 in the E.P. as the legal representatives of the deceased-B. Anandam, which was allowed on 16-3-2005. After the revision petitioners were so brought on record the executing Court ordered delivery of possession of the decree schedule property to the respondent, by the order impugned.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that after the revision petitioners were brought on record as legal representatives of B. Anandam (the deceased-judgment debtor) since no notice under Order XXI, Rule 22, CPC which is mandatory, was issued, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since revision petitioners came on record in C.M.S.A. No. 21 of 1996, which arose out of an E.A. in the E.P., as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, no further notice under Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC is necessary to them, after they were impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor in the E.P. and contended that in any event in view of proviso to Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC, the order under revision needs no interference. In reply, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that proviso to Rule 22 of Order XXI, CPC has no application to the facts of this case.

4. Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC reads :

22. (1) Where an application for execution is made -

(a) more than two years after the date of the decree,

(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of Section 44A, or

(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in conseq