K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed in E.A. No. 234/2015 in E.P. No. 180/2014 in O.S. No. 20/2010 on the file of the Munsiff Court, North Paravur under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that the suit was filed by the respondent herein for partition of the plaint schedule property and allotment of one such share to her and a preliminary decree for partition was passed allotting one such share to her and remaining shares to the defendants jointly. Thereafter, final decree application was filed and final decree was also passed separating the share of the plaintiff in the suit and allotting the remaining property jointly to the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit as per Ext. P1 final decree. The respondent herein is in possession of the share allotted to her. Thereafter, the remaining defendants who are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit filed E.P. No. 180/2014 as Ext. P3 for delivery of the property allotted to them jointly. During the pendency of execution petition, first decree holder Smt. Bharathi died. The remaining decree holders filed Ext. P2 as E.A. No. 234/2015 for effecting delivery of the property on behalf of the deceased first defendant also and respondent herein filed Ext. P4 objection to the same. But the learned Munsiff dismissed the application as per Ext. P5 impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition had been filed.

3. Heard Adv. Sri. K. Narayanan (Paravoor), counsel appearing for the petitioners and Adv. Sri. K.S. Bharathan, counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below had not properly understood the implication of Order 21, Rule 15 (1) and (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in this regard. When joint decree is passed, a petition can be filed on behalf of the others by anyone of the joint decree holders and the court is vested with the power to pass appropriate orders, protecting the interest of the persons who have not joined the application. That does not mean that without their juncture, the application is not maintainable. The court can very well observe that the delivery had been effected for and on behalf of the deceased first defendant as well, so that the interest of the first defendant can be protected and the right if any of the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant will not be affected on account of the joint delivery of the property and the other decree holders will not get any special right over the property as well.

5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that without the juncture of the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant, who is the first decree holder, the application is not maintainable. Further, an application was filed for impleading the legal heirs of the deceased first decree holder. But later that petition was not pressed. That shows that there is no bona fide in filing the application.

6. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the preliminary decree was passed and the share of defendants 1 to 4 in the suit in the properties were declared jointly in their favour and even in the final decree proceedings, allotment was made jointly to the defendants 1 to 4 and the share of the respondent herein was separately allotted and she is in possession of the portion allotted to her as per the final decree. So her right is not affected in the matter.

7. It is also an admitted fact that all the four defendants jointly filed Ext. P3 execution petition for delivery of the property allotted to them jointly and during the pendency of the execution petition, the first decree holder (first defendant) died. It is true that the petitioners who are the remaining decree holders also filed an application to implead the legal heirs of the deceased first defendant and also filed Ext. P2 application as E.A. No 234/2015 under Order 21, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to execute the