The main legal point established is that in cases of substitution of legal representatives, where one legal representative has been allowed to represent all, the court should ensure that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with law.

1. - The petitioners have filed an application dated 24th July, 2008 under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for substitution of legal representative of deceased respondents no. 2/1 Badri Lal, 2/3 Brij Mohan, 2/7 Koshalya Bai and 2/8 Gulab Bai, on record. The learned counsel for the respondents has also filed application dated 24th July, 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer that the application may be allowed and Vakalatnama of L.Rs. Of Brij Mohan may be taken on record. The names of respondents no. 2/1 Shri Badri Lal, 2/2/7 Kaushalya Bai and 2/8 Gulab Bai may be deleted from the array of respondents.

2. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the application filed by the petitioners is allowed. The legal representatives of deceased respondents, as mentioned in the application, are taken on record.

3. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application filed by the respondents and the said application stands disposed of. Mr. Gopal Garg, advocate appears for the contesting respondents, therefore, the service of other respondents is dispensed with at this stage.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has also filed an application for vacation of ex-parte interim stay order dated 23rd May, 2008 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, but during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for both the parties contended that writ petition itself may be heard and disposed of finally.

5. The prayer is allowed. The application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution is dismissed. The writ petition is taken up for hearing.

6. Admit.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement against the defendants in the year 1960 which was decreed on 9th October, 1968 against 9 defendants including Ambika wife of Peer Bhai and Gulam Hussain S/o Peer Bhai. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by the defendants before the High Court which was dismissed on 1st May, 1980. Thereafter, the defendants preferred special leave petition before Hon'ble Apex Court which was also dismissed. The plaintiff-decree holder filed an application for execution of the decree in the executing court. One of the judgment debtor Gulam Hussain filed an objection petition under Section 47 CPC. The reply to the objection petition was also filed. During the pendency of that objection petition and execution petition, the judgment debtor Gulam Hussain died on 4th September, 2005. His legal representatives were not brought on record, therefore, the decree holder filed an application in the executing court on 3rd March, 2006 that legal representatives of Gulam Hussain have not been placed on record in objection petition filed by him, therefore, objection petition is liable to be dismissed as abated. Subsequently an application was filed on behalf of Mr. Mansoor Dayani, one of the legal representative of Gulam Hussain in the execution petition to substitute his name, which was allowed and he was allowed to represent all the legal representatives of Gulam Hussain. The learned trial court vide is order dated 5th May, 2008 passed an order that in absence of any application for substitution of legal representatives on record in the objection petition filed by deceased Gulam Hussain, the objection petition has abated and consequently the objection petition was dismissed. In the said order it was also directed that Mr. Mansoor Dayami will represent all the legal representatives of deceased Gulam Hussai in the execution petition. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the judgment debtor Mr. Mansoor Dayani S/o late Shri Gulam Hussain.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the executing court has committed a serious illegality in rejecting the objection petition filed on behalf of Gulam Hussain on the ground that his legal representatives have not be