The court has jurisdiction to execute an order for delivery of possession against some of the heirs and legal representatives of a deceased judgment-debtor, even if notice has not been served on all the heirs and legal representatives, provided that the heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record and the court has valid reasons for dispensing with the service of notice.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sixth Court, the Executing Court, allowing the decree-holder petitioners to take delivery of possession after dispensing with the service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on some of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor briefly in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) THE respondent, Ballygunge Estates (Private) Ltd. is the owner of a Cinema House known as 'aleya Cinema' near Gariahat Market, Ballygunge, Calcutta. One Keshab Chandra Dutta, who was the Manager of the Cinema, instituted a suit on or about 17th August, 1970 in Alipore Court for specific performance of contract with other consequential reliefs against the respondent in terms of an agreement alleged to be entered into by and between the respondent and the plaintiff in that suit which was ultimately decreed ex parte. This ex parte decree was put into execution on or about 27th January, 1971 and the plaintiff Keshab Chandra took possession of the Cinema.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent made an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree and obtained an order setting aside such decree on 23rd October, 1971. Then the matter came up in revision at the instance of Keshab Chandra, the plaintiff, who obtained a Rule from this Court which was, however, discharged. On or about 6th January, 1972 the respondent made an application under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution and pending the disposal of the restitution application the plaintiff Keshab also made successive applications, for preferring an appeal, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but both the applications for leave as also for special leave were dismissed. On or about 6th May, 1972 the respondent obtained an order for restitution of possession of the Cinema upon his application. An appeal taken again to this Court from this order was also dismissed on or about 3rd October, 1972.

( 4 ) THEN, in the meantime Keshab Chandra, the plaintiff, died and after his death the respondent made an application for bringing the heirs and legal representatives of Keshab on record and prayed for delivery of possession against them as mentioned in the application. Some of the heirs, namely, widow of Keshab and one son Dipak Dutta applied in the original suit for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff including themselves and pending the disposal of this application no order was made upon the application made by the respondent for proceeding against the heirs and legal representatives of Keshab. The application of the widow and one son of Keshab for substitution was, however, allowed on 16th February, 1973 but his four daughters were added as pro forma defendants. On or about 26th March, 1973 the respondent applied for dispensing with the service of notice for delivery of possession on those four daughters under Order 21, Rule 22 (2) of the Code. Both the applications of the respondent were, however, opposed by the widow and the son Dipak, but the Court below passed an order on 28th March, 1973 allowing the respondent to take delivery of possession against the heirs and legal representatives of Keshab having dispensed with the service of notice under Order 21, Rule 22 (3) of the Code on the view that service of such notice upon the four daughters of Keshab would cause unreasonable delay and would defeat the ends of justice particularly when the petitioner only prays for taking delivery of possession of the property on the basis of restitution. That is how, in short, the appellants felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeal.

( 5 ) MR. Dutta appearing in support of the appeal has contended, in the first place, that unless all the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff Keshab are brought on record, the Court could not have an