The provisions of Order 22, Rules 3, 4, and 8 of the Civil Procedure Code apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order.

T. U. Mehta, Ag. C. J. :- This L.P.A. arises out of the judgement re corded by a single Judge of this Court in Execution Second Appeal No. 1 of 1973 Short facts of the case are that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who are respectively Paras Ram, Krishan Dayal and Dharmu and who are the sons of one Ram Ditta, had filed a suit for possession against appellant No. 2 Tulsi, respondent No. 4 Mst. Maro and respondent No. 5 Nanku the son of Lehnu. The dispute in that suit was as regards title to the property arising out of the inheritance. Respondents, Nos. 1, 2 and 3 succeeded in obtaining a decree for possession in their favour. This decree was subsequently sought to be executed, but at the time of the execution it was found that the present appellants, except Tulsi, and respondents Nos. 6 to 10, were also in possession of certain parcels of the land in dispute. The decree-holders, therefore, joined even these persons as judgement-debtors on the allegation that they were inducted in the land by the original judgement-debtors after the decree was passed. During the execution proceedings which proceeded, the appellants, and the respondent, who are said to have been inducted by the original judgement-debtor took the plea that they, were holding different parcels of the disputed land as tenants, and tenancy rights in the favour were created even before the decree was obtained by the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

2. This contention of the objectors was rejected by the Executing Court, and thereafter, by the District Judge in appeal, as also by the learned single Judge of this High Court in second execution appeal. With a special leave by the learned single Judge, these appellants have now preferred this appeal.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant No. 1 has died on 31-10-1977 and the respondent No. 1 Paras Ram, who was one of the original joint decree-holders, has also died on 26th June, 1977. It is an admitted fact that neither the legal representatives of the respondent No. 1 Paras Ram, nor the legal representatives of the appellant No. 1 Sher Singh are brought on record. Therefore, the question is : What is the effect of non-bringing the legal representatives of Paras Ram on the record of this case.

4. We are not referring to the consequences of not bringing the legal representatives of Sher Singh on the record of this case because, in our opinion, non-bringing of the legal representatives of Paras Ram in the case is fatal to this appeal.

5. The first preliminary objection which was urged by the learned Advocate of the appellants was that provisions of Rr.3, 4 and 8 of O.22 of the Civil P.C. which contemplates the bringing of the legal representatives of a deceased party on the record of a particular case do not apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order as provided by R.12 of O.22.

6. Rule 12 of O.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is in the following terms : "Nothing in Rr.3, 4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order."

7. The contention was that this Letters Patent Appeal is nothing but the continuation of the original execution proceedings and therefore the rules as regards joining of the legal representatives of a deceased party as contained in Rr.3, 4 and 8 of O.22 have no application so far as this Letters Patent Appeal is concerned.

8. In our view, the above contention omits to take into consideration the provisions found in R.11 of O.22, which is found in the following terms : "In the application of this order to appeals, so far as may be, the word "plaintiff" shall be held to include an appellant, the word "defendant" a respondent, and the word "suit" an appeal." It is thus evident that according to the above quoted R.11 of O.22, the provisions contained in the Code as regards the procedure to be adopted in appeals apply with the only difference that the plaintiff should be understood as appellant, defendant as respondent and suit as an appeal. Now, if a referen