Procedural rules under the CPC specify that execution proceedings are not abated by the death of a judgment-debtor, allowing legal representatives to enforce decrees.

JUDGMENT /RDER :

In view of Order XXII Rule 12 CPC, question arose in the present case, as to what happens to the proceedings for execution of a decree for permanent injunction under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, when judgment-debtor dies pending the execution proceedings.

2. This application has been filed by the petitioner/party-in-person seeking the following prayer :

"......to pass order directing the Registry to add the word "died" after the name of 4th respondent Gorijavolu Rajendra Prasad in the cause title of CRP No.2634 of 2023 and to pass such other order or orders that are necessary in the interest of justice."

3. It is stated in Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the 4th respondent, namely, Gorijavolu Rajendra Prasad expired on 19.07.2024, and one of his legal representatives, i.e., his wife, by name, Gorijavolu Pavani, is on record as the 5th respondent, that there is sufficient representation in the matter from the legal representative of the deceased 4th respondent and hence, there is no necessity of bringing all the legal representatives on record in the place of the deceased 4th respondent, and that it is necessary to incorporate changes in the cause title of CRP No.2634 of 2023, after the name of the 4th respondent as "died".

4. Heard the petitioner/party-in-person.

5. Facts leading to filing of the petition are briefly as follows :

(a) The petitioner/DHr filed ATC No.2 of 2003 against the sole respondent (i) for declaration that the purchase of the schedule land of Acs.3.93 cents and Acs.3.47 cents in Sy.No.56/2; Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.56/3; and Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.65/5B, Mulukuduru Village by the petitioner from the 1st respondent came into effect from the date of payment of the 1st installment of the determined value of the schedule land on 26.09.2023; and (ii) for injunction against alienations. In IA No.1004/2003 filed in ATC No.2 of 2003, the Tribunal passed order of status quo against alienations.

(b) When the interlocutory order was in force, on 03.02.2006, the 1st respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent in respect of Acs.3.47 cents in Sy.No.56/2 and Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.56/3 (total Acs.3.57 cents) and other sale deed in favour of the 3rd respondent in respect of Ac.0.36 cents in Sy.No.65/5B, in violation of the orders of status quo, when the property was in possession and cultivation of the petitioner.

(c) The petitioner alleged that the 2nd respondent and his brother, in the intervening night of 05/06.02.2006, trespassed into the land under lease of the petitioner and stole paddy. The petitioner lodged a complaint.

(d) On the petition of the petitioner, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were added during the pendency of ATC No.02 of 2003.

(e) On 30.11.2009, the petition was allowed by the Tribunal in respect of right of pre-emption and granted permanent injunction not to interfere with the petitioner's possession. The petitioner paid the amount directed to be paid in the order.

(f) When the judgment-debtors preferred appeal ATA No.2 of 2010, there was no order of stay, the petitioner filed EP No.82 of 2010 under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC against the respondent Nos.2 to 5. It was dismissed on 29.11.2013 as the order of Tribunal was not in subsistence as on that date. Then, the respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 made further damage to the land by removing southern boundary bund and raised level of the part of the land (equal to the level of the land of the 4th respondent) and thereby making it unfit for wet cultivation.

(g) The petitioner failed before the District Court and the High Court.

(h)