1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 30.10.2013 made in E.A.No.3675 of 2011 in E.P.No.1421 of 2008 in O.S.No.2859 of 2004 on the file of the IX Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The petitioner is respondent in E.P.No.1428 of 2008. He is one of the legalheirs of the deceased defendant who is the first respondent in E.P. He has filed E.A.No.3675 of 2011 under Section 47 CPC contending that E.P. is not executable and nullity. According to the petitioner, the first respondent filed suit against his father as sole defendant for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The petitioner's father had filed written statement on 05.08.2004 and was contesting the suit. After the first respondent let in evidence and closed his side, the suit was posted for evidence on behalf of the sole defendant. The sole defendant took adjournments and subsequently, filed proof affidavit stating that he could not appear before the Court for marking the documents and for cross examination as he was bed ridden. Subsequently, he died on 29.02.2008. The judgment and decree was passed on 26.03.2008, after the death of the sole defendant without impleading the legalheirs of the sole defendant and the decree obtained by the first respondent is nullity and it is not executable.

2 (a) The first respondent/decree holder filed counter and submitted that the death of the sole defendant was not intimated to the court by the learned counsel for the defendant or by the legalheirs of the defendant. The petitioner was contesting the case alongwith his father. The advocate for the deceased defendant did not inform about the death of the defendant till the decree was passed. Even after the death of sole defendant, the vakalat of the advocate is valid. The petitioner has deliberately not informed the death of his father which is illegal and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the application under Section 47 CPC. The decree is valid and enforceable as per law under Section 50 of CPC.

3. Before the learned Judge, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and marked two documents as Exs.P1 & P2. On behalf of the first respondent, one Mohamed Abdul Rashid was examined as RW1 and marked three documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The learned Judge, considering the affidavit of the petitioner, Order XXII Rules 1, 4 (4) and 10-A of CPC, dismissed the application holding that the application under Section 47 CPC is not maintainable and the remedy available to the petitioner is only by way of appeal.

4. Against the said order of dismissal dated 30.10.2013 made in E.A.No.3675 of 2011 in E.P.No.1421 of 2008 in O.S.No.2859 of 2004, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after setting the sole defendant exparte, judgment was delivered after the death of the sole defendant. The first respondent did not file any application to bring the legalheirs on record. In the absence of any order bringing the legalheirs of the deceased sole defendant, the judgment delivered is against a dead person and the same is a nullity.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent contended that deceased sole defendant, after filling the written statement, contested the suit till the evidence of first respondent was completed. After that he did not contest the suit and he was set exparte. The sole defendant did not contest the suit and in such circumstances, even if the legal heirs are not impleaded, the judgment will not be a nullity. Judgment in question delivered after setting sole defendant exparte and after his death deems to have been exempted bringing the legalheirs on record.

6(a) The sole defendant was represented by learned counsel. As per Order XXII Rule 10(a) CPC, the learned counsel for the defendant is liable to inform the court about the death of the defendant and furnish the particulars of the date of death as well as the legal heirs of the deceased