Rule 12 of Order 22, Civil Procedure Code, does not apply to appeals from orders relating to execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT : The facts which have given rise to these appeals are that Thakur Ranvijai Singh of Sarana, the predecessor of the appellants instituted a suit for ejectment against Sualal, Laxmi Narain. Kanhaiyalal and Mohanlal, sons of Baluram in the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Kekri, for recovery of possession of land which was decreed in his favour on 8th May, 1952. This decree was upheld both by the District Judge, Aimer and the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer.

The decree was in the following terms :-

(i) A decree is passed for vacant possession of the land in suit with costs in favour of the plaintiff.

(ii) The defendants, who are entitled to remove their 'malba' would deliver vacant possession of the land after removing their 'malba' within 15 days from today;

(iii) They are also restrained by means of a permanent injunction from making any further encroachment on the suit land and constructing upon it.

The decree-holder took out execution proceedings on 1-5-57 but during the pendency of those proceedings, the Ajmer Abolition of Intermediary and Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had come into force and thereupon the Judgment-debtors made an objection on 28-11-1957 to the effect that as the property after the coming into force of the aforesaid Act had vested in the State, the decree-holder had no right to execute it. The executing Court rejected the Judgment-debtors' objection and issued a warrant for delivery of possession.

On 12th September. 1958, the Reader of the Executing Court went on the spot to execute the warrant and in compliance of it got the structures over the land demolished and the decree-holder was put in possession of the land. The Judgment-debtors, however, took an appeal to the Court of the Senior Civil and Additional Sessions Judge against the order of the Executing Court dated 11-9-1958, and the learned Senior Civil Judge by his order dated 28-8-1959 remanded the case to the executing court for recording the evidence of the parties and then dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law.

After the order of remand, the Executing Court recorded evidence and after hearing the parties, dismissed the execution application by its order dated 18-1-1961, holding that the decree-holder had no right to execute the decree. The decree-holder preferred an appeal against the said order and on 20th February, 1964, the case was again remanded to the Executing Court with the direction that the State Government be made a party to the proceedings. Although the State Government was made a party, but it did not put in appearance before the Executing Court.

The executing Court again dismissed the execution application on 20th February. 1964, upholding its previous view. In the meanwhile, the Judgment-debtors made an application for restitution under Section 144, Civil Procedure Code on the 28th February, 1961. The decree-holder again preferred an appeal against the order of the Executing Court dated 20th February, 1964, but it was dismissed on 12-11-1965 and civil execution second appeal No. 22 of 1966 is directed against that order.

On the application of the Judgment-debtors under Section 144, Civil P. C., the Executing Court by its order dated 10th March, 1964, ordered restitution of the land in dispute and also directed the decree-holder to pay Rs. 7000 to the Judgment-debtors on account of damages caused by demolition of their building. The decree-holder appealed to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge Aimer, but without any success. Civil Execution Second Appeal No. 3 of 1966 is directed against the appellate order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ajmer, dated 16-12-1965.

In both these appeals, the respondents judgment-debtors made an application that Laxminarain, one of the Judgment-debtors died on 10th May, 1967, and the appellants have not made any application within the prescribed time for substituting his legal representatives on record and as such the appeals have abated. Because this common qu