The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for seeking court permission under Order 22 Rule 4(4) CPC in cases involving the deceased judgment-debtor and the applicability of provisions in determining the validity of a decree.

1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10.10.2002 by which the application under Section 50 CPC filed by the non-petitioner decree holder was allowed.

2. A decree dated 22.1.1980 was passed against the deceased-tenant Bheru Singh. In the said suit after service upon the defendant Bheru Singh, Bheru Singh filed his vakalatnama on 27.9.1976 and the written statement was filed on 18.10.1976. After the aforesaid written statement was filed, the issues were framed on 24.1.1977. These facts are available on the certified copies which were submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. An execution application was filed for execution of the decree dated 22.1.1980 and the first execution application was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, the second execution application was filed and along with the same an application under Section 50 CPC was also filed by the decree-holder non-petitioner on 16.5.1988. In the said application, it was mentioned that earlier an execution was filed in the Execution Claim Case No. 17/1981 which was dismissed as not pressed on 31.10.1987. It was mentioned in para 4 of the application that judgment-debtor Bheru Singh has died before the satisfaction of the decree and as such it is necessary that the legal representatives of Bheru Singh be impleaded as parties. In para 2 of the said application, it was mentioned that when the warrant for possession was issued in pursuance of the Execution Case No. 17/1981, the sons of deceased-judgment debtor appeared in the court and submitted an application that Bheru Singh has already expired.

3. A reply to the aforesaid application was filed by the petitioners and it was submitted in para 4 that judgment-debtor Bheru Singh died on 2.10.1978 before the suit was decreed on 22.1.1980. In the light of the aforesaid averments made in the reply, it was submitted that decree which was passed on 22.1.1980 in Civil Suit No. 128/1986 against the deceased judgment-debtor Bheru Singh was null and void and the same cannot be executed. The learned executing court by the impugned order dated 10.10.2002 allowed the application filed by the non-petitioner decree-holder and ordered for the issuance of warrant of possession against the legal representatives. It is the aforesaid order dated 10.10.2002 which has been challenged before this court in revision petition.

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned executing court has committed an error in allowing the application under Section 50 CPC and impleading the legal representatives of the I deceased judgment-debtor, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the judgment- debtor had expired during the pendency of the suit before the decree was passed on 22.1.1980. It is submitted that as mentioned in the reply to the application under Section 50 CPC that since the deceased Bheru Singh has died on 2.10.1978 and, therefore, the decree was a nullity. It is submitted that learned executing court has committed an error in relying upon the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4(4) CPC, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is submitted that the provisions of Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule (4) are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the deceased Bheru Singh was a defendant in the suit and has not only filed his written statement but contested the same and on the pleadings, issues were framed and even the plaintiffs witnesses were cross examined. But no evidence was led on account of the fact that deceased defendant died on 2.10.1978. It is, therefore, submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Rule 4ORDER22 are not attracted. Even otherwise, it was submitted that it is for the plaintiff under the aforesaid provisions to seek exemption by applying the same and in the facts and circumstances no such exemption was sought for or granted. Consequently, it is submitted that the decree