Heard Mr. Gharte, learned counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. Killedar, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. By this Revision Application, the Applicant is challenging the order dated 9th October, 2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ichalkaranji, below “Exhibit-45” in Final Decree Proceedings No. 12 of 2005.

3. The application at “Exhibit-45” was filed by the present Applicant to bring her name on record of the proceedings, being the only legal heir of her husband. It was stated that, her husband, who was party to the proceedings, has expired on 6th May, 2007, during the pendency of the Final Decree proceedings and hence, it has become necessary to bring her name on record, as she has inherent right to get possession of the share of her husband in the suit property.

4. This application at “Exhibit-45” was resisted by the Respondents on the ground that, already the proceedings are abated against the Applicant’s husband and, therefore, unless the application to set aside the abatement is filed, the present application filed by the Applicant to bring her name on record, cannot be maintainable.

5. The trial Court accepted the contention raised by the Respondents and rejected the Applicant’s application.

6. This order of the trial Court is challenged in the present Revision Application by learned counsel for the Applicant by submitting that, the proceedings of Final Decree are as good as the execution proceedings and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of V. Uthirapathi vs. Ashrab Ali and ors., AIR 1998 SC 1168, and as per the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the provisions of Rules 3, 4 and 8 of Order 22 of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to the execution proceedings and, therefore, the trial Court has committed an error in holding that, unless and until the abatement is set aside, the name of the Applicant cannot be brought on record as legal heir of her husband. In this Judgment, in paragraph No. 15, it was held as follows :—

“15. It is clear, therefore, that if after the filing of an execution petition in time, the decree-holder dies and his legal representatives do not come on record or the judgment-debtor dies and his legal representatives are not bought on record, then, there is no abatement of the execution petition. If there is no abatement, the position in the eye of law is that the execution petition remains pending on the file of the execution court. If it remains pending and if no time limit is prescribed to bring the legal representatives on record in execution proceedings, it is open in case of death of the decree-holder, for his legal representative to come on record at any time. The execution application cannot even be dismissed for default behind the back of the decree-holder’s legal representative. In case of death of the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder could file an application to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record at any time. Of-course, in case of death of judgment-debtor, the Court can fix a reasonable time for the said purpose and if the decree-holder does not file an application for the aforesaid purpose, the Court can dismiss the execution petition for default. But, in any event, the execution petition cannot be dismissed as abated. Alternatively, it is also open to the decree-holder’s legal representatives to file a fresh execution petition, in case of death of the decree-holder; OR, in case of death of the judgment-debtor, the decree-holder can file a fresh execution petition, impleading the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor; such a fresh execution petition, if filed, is, in law, only a continuation of the pending execution petition – the one which was filed in time by the decree-holder initially. This is the position under the Code of Civil Procedure.”

7. However, as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the Respondents, the present proceedings are not the execution proc