TYAGI, J.—This is judgment-debtors execution first appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, and it arises out of the following circumstances:

A decree in a mortgage suit was awarded in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1967 in favour of the decree-holders. The decree-holder took out execution proceedings and the executing court ordered for the sale of the mortgaged property. The sale proclamation was settled, but before the property could actually be put to auction, one of the decree-holders, namely, Surendra Kumar Sethi died on 30th of October, 1973. An application was moved by the heirs of deceased Surendra Kumar Sethi to bring them on record. The judgment-debtor objected to this application, inter alia, on the ground that the execution cannot continue unless a succession certificate was obtained by the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder under sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act. The surviving decree-holders, however-applied on 5th of January, 1974, that they had a right to continue the execution proceedings even without bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder and the bar put by sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act cannot deprive the surviving decree-holders of their right to continue the execution under O. 21, r. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Tarachand Sethi, one of the decree-holders, filed an affidavit that the execution of the decree by the surviving decree-holders will be in the interest of all the decree-holders including the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder. Shri K. C. Sanghi counsel for the legal representatives of Surendra Kumar Sethi decree-holder also filed an application on 7th of January, 1974 that the continuance of the execution proceedings is in the interest of the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder Surendra Kumar Sethi and, therefore, a date may be fixed for the auction of the mortgaged property. It appears that the judgment-debtor vehemently opposed the continuance of the execution proceedings because of the provisions of sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act. According to the judgment-debtor, that provision of the law created a bar for continuing the execution proceedings unless the legal heirs of the deceased decree-holder obtained a succession certificate.

2. The learned Judge rejected this objection of the judgment-debtor and ordered that the property attached may be auctioned. It is against this judgment of the executing court that the present appeal has been filed by the judgment-debtor.

3. Mr. Datt appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that the provisions of sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act are mandatory in nature and, therefore, unless compliance has been made by the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder and a succession certificate is obtained by them, no further action can be taken by them in the execution proceedings. His further contention is that the provisions of O. 21 r. 15 Code of Civil Procedure are procedural and, therefore, they cannot override the mandate contained in sec. 214 of the Indian Succession Act which is a substantive law. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed by him on Ganeshmal vs. Smt. Anand Kunwar (l).

4. Mr. Kasliwal, who has filed a caveat on behalf of the decree-holers, has, on the other hand, contended that there is no conflict between the provisions of sec. 214 Indian Succession Act and O. 21 r. 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and argued that the ratio of the decision of this Court in Ganeshmals case(l) cannot be applied to the circumstances of this case because in that case there was only one decree-holder and, therefore, after his death it was found necessary to avoid any future conflict between the rival claimants who could claim to execute the decree after the death of the original decree-holder to continue the execution proceedings.

5. The learned Judges, while examining the scope of sec. 214(l) (a) and (b) o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document