( 1 ) THE petitioners claim to be the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-creditor who died during the pendency of execution application. The petitioners applied for being joined as parties contending that the deceased judgment-creditor had executed Will in their favour and they were entitled to proceed further with the execution application. The respondent-original judgment-debtors contended that thee petitioners should be asked to obtain probate and/ or letters of administration with will annexed or without will annexed. Unless they obtain probate or the letters of administration they cannot be permitted to proceed with the execution application The trial Court upheld the contention filed by the petitioners herein. Against this order the petitioners have preferred this revision application.

( 2 ) THE respondents contend that in view of the provisions of Sec. 214 (1) (b) of the Indian Succession Act 1925 the petitioners have no right to proceed further with the execution application filed by the deceased judgment-creditor. The relevant part of Sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 reads as follows:214 (1) No Court shall (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) proceed upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his debt except on the production by the person claiming of (i) a probate or letters of administration evidencing the grant to him of admini- stration to the estate of the deceased. (ii ). . . . . . (iii ). . . . (iv ). . . . If the provisions of Sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 are carefully it becomes evident that the restriction contained therein apply to the institution of execution application and not for proceeding with the execution application which may have been initiated by the judgment-creditor himself during his life time. Once the Judgment- creditor himself has instituted the execution application all that would be necessary for persons claiming to be heirs and legal representatives at the judgment-creditor would be to comply with the requirements of the relevant provisions of C. P. Code The point is covered by a decision of this High Court in the case of Rukaiyabibi v. Abdulbhai Isufally reported in [1977] 18 GLR 164. In that case this High Court has inter alia held as follows:in a case where the execution proceeding has already been started by the deceased decree-holder and during the pendency of that application he dies and his legal representatives who are brought on the record want to continue that execution proceeding it is not necessary for them to produce a succession certi- ficate for continuance of that execution proceeding already initiated by the deceased decree-holder. Section 214 (1) (b) of the Act does not come in their way

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent tried to distinguish the aforesaid decision of this High Court. In his submission where the heirs and legal representatives are already brought on record the contention based on the provisions of Sec. 214 (1) (b) would not be available to the other side but such contention would be available at the initial stage when they are submitting the application for being joined as heir and legal representative of the deceased and when the application is being decided.

( 4 ) IT is difficult to agree with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondent It is not because that the legal representa- tives of the deceased decree-holder are brought on record without there being any objection from the other side that they get right to continue the execution proceedings. Objection of concession on the part of the other side does not determine the right of the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder to pursue further execution proceedings. Nor such objection or concession remove the bar of provisions of Sec. 214 (1) (b) of Indian Succession Act 1925 if there be any. The right of the legal represent