IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained against a dead person without impleading their legal representatives is a nullity and cannot be executed.

JUDGMENT

1. Aggrieved by the orders dtd. 16/3/2015 passed in E.P.No. 77 of 2014 in Dis.No.53 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, (in short "the execution court" the present revision is filed.

2. The petitioner herein is the Decree Holder/ plaintiff; the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the Judgment Debtors/ defendants 1 to 4 before the court below.

3. Initially the petitioner filed a case for recovery of money against the respondents basing on the Chit transaction before the Deputy Registrar of Chit/ Arbitrator at Visakahpatnam in Dis. 53 of 2012 and the same was disposed of by way of Award dtd. 2/6/2014 for Rs.76,872.00. Basing on the Award, Execution Petition was filed under order 21, rule 48 of C.P.C seeking to order attachment of J.Drs 1, 2 and 4 to the extent of money available by issuing pro-order to their garnishee mentioned in the E.P and claima to send to the attached amount to court for realization of E.P amount and further interest till realization. On enquiry, the execution court dismissed the said E.P holding that the Judgment Debtor No.1 died on 13/7/2014 and the Decree Holder not taken steps to implead the legal representations of the 1st Judgment Debtor. The E.P filed to attach the salary of an individual. Fresh decree cannot be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Judgment Debtor. Therefore the execution court dismissed the E.P. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision came to be filed.

4. Heard Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the 4th respondent.

5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the execution court ought to have seen that the Award in the instant case is a joint and several and that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for pay the E.P amount. The liability of all the respondents including the 4th respondent i.e 4th Judgment Debtor is co-extensive and immediate as per the provisions of Sec. 126, 128, 134, 137, 138, 139 and 140 of the Indian Contract Act. It is further contended that the execution court ought to have seen that the respondents 1 to 3 remained exparte in the main case, therefore the petitioner has taken steps for issuance of the summons as per the procedure enumerated in CPC vide giving paper publication. So also the petitioner has no knowledge about the death of the 1st respondent and 3rd respondent as at no point of time there was neither information nor any intimation to the petitioner. The execution court erred in dismissing the application on the ground that the E.P is not executable, which is quite contra to the provisions of order 22, rule 4(3) of CPC. Therefore, the findings given by the learned execution court are mere surmises and hence the revision is liable to be allowed.

6. Whereas, learned counsel for the 4th respondent mainly contended that the Award was passed on 2/6/2014 against the dead person/ 3rd Judgment Debtor, who died in the month of June-2012. The petitioner is aware of the fact that the 3rd Judgment Debtor died and managed the summons to the 3rd Judgment Debtor. The Award passed against the dead person, which is nonest in the eye of law. The 1st Judgment Debtor died on 13/7/2014 i.e subsequent to the passing of decree. The petitioner suppressed the same and filed the E.P. Further the petitioner had not taken steps to implead the legal representatives of the deceased 1st Judgment Debtor. This respondent is only a guarantor to the 1st Judgment Debtor. Therefore the Decree Holder cannot proceed against the Judgment Debtor without adding the legal representations of the 1st Judgment Debtor and hence the revision is liable to be dismissed.

7. Perused the record.

8. As per Sec. 50 of CPC when the Judgment Debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal represe