1. The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order dated 24.9.2010 in I.A.Nos.1194 of 2007, 1195 of 2007, 1616 of 2008 and 1617 of 2008 in A.S.No.159 of 2007, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Palakkad. The appeal, A.S.No.159 of 2007, was filed against the order dated 30.7.2007 in the execution proceedings in O.S.No.656 of 1994 before the Sub Court, Palakkad, by which, the application filed by the petitioner under Rule 97 Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed by the executing court.

2. The suit was filed by Venkitakrishnan against Hariharan for realisation of money. In execution of the decree, the property belonging to the judgment debtor was sold in auction and it was purchased by K.V.Narendranathan. When delivery was attempted to be made, the petitioner obstructed. He also filed an application under Rule 97 Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the executing court. The executing court dismissed that application by the order dated 30.3.2007. Before the order dated 30.3.2007 was passed by the executing court, the judgment debtor Hariharan and the decree holder Venkitakrishnan passed away. Their legal representatives were not brought on record and it was not brought to the notice of the Court by any of the parties. The executing court passed the order as if the decree holder and the judgment debtor were alive.

3. As stated earlier, challenging the order passed by the executing court, the petitioner filed A.S.No.159 of 2007 before the District Court, Palakkad. Notices sent to Hariharan and Venkitakrishnan were returned unserved stating that they were dead. At that juncture, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1194 of 2007 to implead the legal representatives of the decree holder and I.A.No.1195 of 2007 to amend the cause title in the appeal consequent to the impleadment of the legal representatives. Likewise, I.A.No.1616 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the judgment debtor. I.A.No.1617 of 2008 was filed for consequential amendment of the cause title.

4. The court below, relying on the decision in Paru v. Devaki Varassiar (1992 (2) KLT 687), dismissed the applications.

5. In Paru v. Devaki Varassiar (1992 (2) KLT 687), after taking note of the various decisions of the Kerala High Court, it was held thus:

"3. In the decision reported in Meenakshy Pillayathiri Amma v. Lakshmi (1967 KLT 777) this court noticed that the proper procedure to be adopted is to apply to the court which passed the decree and to seek the impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased party and to get a rehearing of the suit or appeal. This decision was noticed by a Division Bench in the decision reported in Abdulla v. Damodaran Namboodiri (1972 KLT 53) where it was held that the action of a trial court, to which the matter had been remanded, in placing the matter before the appellate court which remanded the matter and bringing to its notice the fact that at the time the appellate judgment was rendered one of the parties to the appeal had died was approved by this court thereby indicating that the proper procedure to be adopted was to go to the court which had passed the decree without knowledge of the death of a party before it.In the decision reported in Assyamma v. Aisabi (1976 KLT 101) it was clearly stated that a decree passed by the first appellate court in ignorance of the fact of death is a nullity in the eye of law. It was further stated "strictly speaking, there was no decree to be appealed against". In the light of these decisions it appears to me to be clear that the remedy of the legal representatives of the deceased appellant before the Lower Appellate Court lay in approaching that court to get the appeal reopened, to get themselves impleaded and to proceed with the appeal in accordance with law."

6. In Paru v. Devaki Varassiar (1992 (2) KLT 687), while the appeal was pending before the lower Appellate Court, the sole appellant died. Without noticing the death of the