Proceedings in execution of a decree cannot abate due to the failure of the legal representatives of the deceased decree holder to apply for substitution within the prescribed time. The bar of limitation cannot be invoked in respect of an application for bringing on record legal representatives of a deceased decree holder in proceedings in execution of a decree.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged two orders made by the Executing Court dated 21st of November 1987 and 24th of January 1989, hareinafter REFERRED TO to as the first and the second impugned orders respectively.

( 2 ) BY the first impugned order, the Court held that the execution proceedings instituted by Decree-Holder Thakuri Bai had abated as no application had been made till then by the legal representatives after her death on 8th December. 1986 By the second impugned order, the Court dismissed an application filed by the petitioners to set aside the first impugned order and to allow them to be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased decree holder and to continue the execution proceedings.

( 3 ) THE petitioners claim to be legal representatives of Thakuri Bai by virtue of a registered Will dated 2nd of June 1981 They. claim that the interest of Thakuri Bai in respect of shop No. 122, Khanna Market, Lodi Colony, New Delhi, and a decree obtained by her for possession and mesne profits in respect of the said shop against Laxmi Chand. respondent No. 1, devolved upon them on the death of Thakuri Bai on 8ih of December 1986 and that they are entitled to continue the execution proceedings after her death.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners Bisan Das, the pre-deceased husband of Thakuri Bai, was an allottee of the said shop. Initially Bisan Das employed Laxmi Chand to look after the business carried on by him at the said shop. Later, he took Laxmi Chand as his partner. The partnership was eventually dissolved. But, Laxmi Chand did not hand over possession of the shop to Bisan Das.

( 5 ) LXAMI Chand set up a claim for possession as a tenant and made an application under Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 for fixing standard rent of the shop. Bisan Das contested this application. He died during the pendency of these proceedings and his widow Thakuri Bai was brought on record as his legal representative. The Rent Controller held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

( 6 ) THEREAFTER, Thakuri Bai filed a suit for recovery of possession of the said shop and mesne profits against Laxmi Chand, hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the first suit. The Civil Court held that Lamxi Chand was not a tenant, that he has an unauthorised occupant, and passed a decree for possession of the said shop as also for recovery of mesne profits. Thakuri Bai filed another suit for the recovery of mesne profits for the subsequent period, hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the second suit. Appeals preferred TO by Laxmi Chand from the decrees passed in the first and the second suit were dismissed in due course.

( 7 ) IN April 1^82, after dismissal of the first appeal against the decree passed in the first suit, Thakuri Bai filed an application for execution of the Decree against Laxmi Chand. This application was numbered as Execution Case. No. 26 of 1982. Laxmi Chand, however, preferred TO a second appeal to this Court and thereafter a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court for getting aside the decree, but in vain. Thus, Laxmi Chand finally lost the battle by the dismissal of his Special Leave Petition on 14th December 1984. Then, in January 1985, his son Krishan Kumar filed objections in the execution proceedings, on the ground, inter alia, that a firm M/s. Krishna Brothers, respondent No. 2, in which he is a partner, is in occupation of the said shop as an independent tenant. Before these objections could be disposed of, Thakuri Bai died on 8th of December, 1986.

( 8 ) THE first impugned order was made on 21st of November 1987 on an application filed by the objector, respondent No. 2. In this application. it was alleged that no application had been moved by the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder despite the lapse of more than eight months and it was prayed that the proceedings "be dropped being ab