Arun Kumar Jha, J. – The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the learned Sub Judge-II, Dumraon, Buxar in Execution Case No. 05 of 2008, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Judge has ordered for deletion of names of deceased-decree holder as well as judgment debtors and bringing on record their legal heirs and also allowed correction of some typographical errors.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that one title suit bearing Title Suit No. 53 of 1968 was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents seeking a decree of redemption of a mortgage bond dated 03.07.1996 executed by one Mahendra Missir in favour of Nandlal Ojha and others upon receipt of a sum of Rs. 2,500/-. The plaintiffs further sought a direction against the defendants to redeem the mortgage and to deliver possession of the mortgaged property, failing which a final decree was sought to be prepared and delivery of possession to be effected in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claimed that the mortgaged property was partitioned between the defendants 3rd and 4th parties. Subsequently, the defendants 3rd and 4th parties sold 12 Anna share of the property to the plaintiffs through three sale deeds dated 24.11.1964. The plaintiffs further submitted that they tendered the mortgage amount, but the defendants refused to accept the same, giving rise to suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendants in their written statement contended that in 1926, Mahendra Missir executed two mortgage deeds for a total sum of Rs. 5,000/-, one of which pertained to 5.88 acres for Rs. 2,500/-. It was agreed at the time of mortgage that both deeds would be redeemed simultaneously. The defendants 4th party continued to cultivate the entire 11.26 acres of land and used to settle account with the defendants-2nd party. The partition story of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants as false. The defendants further asserted that Ramshakal Mishra and others never came into possession of the property as alleged by the plaintiffs and the vendors of the plaintiffs had no legal right to sell Mahendra Missir’s property. It was also contended that Mahendra Missir had executed a registered Will on 19.10.1940, bequeathing all his properties described in Schedules-I, II and III of the plaint to defendant-Baleshwar Mishra. Upon Mahendra Missir’s demise, Baleshwar Mishra inherited his property by virtue of this will, which was duly probated by the court on 29.05.1965. Thereafter, Baleshwar Mishra executed an agreement to sell for entire 11.26 acres to the defendants under a registered agreement to sale. The defendants further contended that the right to redeem the mortgage was lost due to the statutory limitation period, as no steps were taken by the plaintiffs to redeem the mortgage within the prescribed time. They contended that the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs were illegal, forged, without consideration and were executed by individuals without any valid title and thus were void in the eyes of law. Therefore, the plaintiffs had no equity of redemption, nor was there any relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee. The said Title Suit No. 53 of 1968 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.09.1987. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the plaintiffs/respondents filed Title Appeal No. 147 of 1987 before the learned District Judge, Buxar, challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.09.1987 passed in Title Suit No. 53 of 1968. The Title Appeal No. 147 of 1987 was allowed by a judgment dated 25.08.2000, wherein the trial court's judgment and decree were reversed. Against the said appellate judgment, the defendants preferred Second Appeal No. 400 of 2000, which is still pending. It further transpires that during the pendency of Second Appeal No. 400 of 2000, the respondents attempted to negotiate the sale of the suit land and I.A. No. 2134 of 2001 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Co