J.B. Pardiwala, J.

This second appeal under section 100 of the CPC is at the instance of the original defendant-judgment debtor and is directed against the judgment and order dated 3rd December, 2013 passed by the 4th Addl. District Judge, Rajkot in the Regular Civil Appeal No.65 of 2012 arising from an order passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Rajkot dated 24th January, 2012 below Exh.1 in the Execution Petition No.2 of 2008.

2. It appears from the materials on record that one Zaverben Mavjibhai-original plaintiff being the owner of the suit property preferred a Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 1991 in the Small Cause Court at Rajkot for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises. The appellant herein was occupying the suit premises as a tenant.

3. By judgment and decree dated 17th March, 1998, the Regular Civil Suit No.117 of 1991 came to be allowed by the Small Cause Court. A decree of eviction was passed.

4. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Small Cause Court, Rajkot, the original appellant herein preferred a Regular Civil Appeal No.29 of 1998 in the District Court at Rajkot.

5. It appears that on 13th November, 2000,. i.e., during the pendency of the regular civil appeal filed by the appellant herein, the original plaintiff passed away. It further appears that the husband of the original plaintiff sold the suit premises in favour of one Jayantilal Govindbhai Kundaliya. The appellant herein failed to bring the legal heirs of the original plaintiff on record in the regular civil appeal. The appeal came to be disposed of as having stood abated.

6. In 2005, Jayantilal Govindbhai Kundaliya sold the suit property in favour of the present respondents.

7. On 28th September, 2008, the respondents herein preferred an Execution Petition No.02 of 2008.

8. The execution petition, Exh.1 filed by the respondents herein came to be allowed vide order dated 24th January, 2012 passed by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Rajkot. While allowing the execution petition, the court below observed as under;

"5. I have gone through the execution petition and the documentary evidence produced in support of it as well as the objections raised by judgment-debtor and the arguments advanced by learned advocates for both the sides. It appears that the decree has been passed Zaverben Mavjibhai in R.C.S. No.117/1991 on 17.03.1998. It further appears that Zaverben is the single decree-holder. It further appears that against the decree, an appeal No.29/1998 has been preferred by the judgment-debtor which was abated on 16.09.2005. That during the pendency of appeal, original decree-holder Zaverben died on 13.11.2000 and, therefore, her husband Mavjibhai Laxmanbhai has filed C.M.A. No.100/2002 for obtaining heirship certificate which was granted in favour of Mabjibhai Laxmanbhai. It appears that in appeal the heirs of deceased Zaverben have not been joined and therefore, appeal was abated and against the said order neither appeal nor revision has been preferred before the appellate authority. Therefore, the decree passed in R.C.S. No.117/1991 has become absolute. Herein in this case, husbasnd of original decree- holder, Mavjibhai Laxmanbhai has obtained heirship certificate during the pendency of appeal and, therefore, husband of deceased Zaverben has become decree-holder and owner of the rented decretal shop by operation of law as per Order-21, Rule-16 of CPC. Further, as per explanation of this rule which is inserted by Act No.104 of 1976 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977) nothing in this rule shall affect Sec. 146, and transferee of rights in the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, may apply for execution of the decree without a separate assignment of the decree as required by this rule. Therefore, as per sec. 146 of CPC, the husband of decree-holder has right and interest in the decreetal rented shop as the decree has been transferred in his favour by operation of law. The husband of deceased Zaverben ha