Execution petition if barred by the period of limitation.

C.R.P.No.3159ofl989: This revision is directed against an order dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to implead herself as a party to the execution proceeding. The petitioner is a purchaser from the second respondent under a document dated 10. 1986. Respondents 2 and 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor against whom the first respondent has obtained a decree on foot of a mortgage. The final decree was passed on 211. 1967. The judgment-debtor died on.19. 1978. Respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded in the execution petition as the judgment-debtor’s legal representatives.

2. The petitioner filed E.A.No.3323 of 1986 for impleading herself as a party to the execution proceeding claiming that she is an interested and necessary party to the proceeding, as she has purchased the property from one of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The court below dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner will be bound by the decree in the suit as she is a subsequent purchaser from one of the legal representatives.

3. The order of the court below is erroneous. Even though the decree is binding on the petitioner he is an interested and necessary party to the execution proceeding as she will have a right to redeem the mortgage. If she wants, she can pay the money to the decree-holder and prevent the sale of the property in execution of the decree. Hence she is a necessary party to the execution proceeding.

4. Consequently, the order of the court below is set aside. The petitioner is impleaded as a party to E.P.No.186 of 1980 in O.S.No.4151 of 1965 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. This revision petition is allowed. No costs.

5.C.R.P.No.3158 of 1989: In this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dismissing her application under Sec.47, C.P.C. on the footing that the decree had become inexecutable as the proceedings were barred by limitation.

6. The short facts are these: The respondent obtained a decree on foot of a mortgage. The final decree was passed on 211. 1967. She filed E.P.No.186 of 1980 on 19. 1979. The decree-holder not being aware of the death of the judgment-debtor (mortgagor) filed the execution petition as if the judgment-debtor was alive. On coming to know of the death of the mortgagor the first respondent impleaded respondents 2 and 3 as his legal representatives and sought to proceed against them. The order impleading respondents 2 and 3 was not challenged by them.

7. The petitioner purchased the property from the second respondent on 10. 1986. After purchase she filed an application to implead herself as a party to the execution proceeding and another application under Sec.47, C.P.C. dismiss the execution proceeding as barred by limitation. Both the applications were dismissed by the executing Court.

8. I have now allowed the revision petition (C.R.P.No.3159 of 1989), filed by the petitioner against the order dismissing her application to implead herself as a party. Thus the revision petitioner has become a party to the execution proceeding by virtue of my order.

9. However, the contention urged by the petitioner that the execution petition should be dismissed as barred by limitation is not acceptable. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges three contentions. The first is that the decree-holder ought to have followed the procedure under Sec.50, C.P.C. for impleading the legal representatives in the execution proceeding. Learned counsel submits that under Sec.50 if a judgment-debtor dies before the decree is fully satisfied, the holder of the decree should apply to the court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. The section uses the word ‘may’. The option is given to the decree-holder to file an application before the court which passed the decree. But nothing prevents him from filing an application before the executing court to implead the legal repre