Legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors must be impleaded in execution proceedings as prescribed by Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code, mandating compliance with prior court opinions.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The revision petitioners are judgment debtors. The 1^st respondent had filed an suit for ejectment against the tenants occupying the property belonging to the first respondent. Pending the suit, an application was taken out by the tenants under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 for purchasing the land belonging to the charities. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court. However, on the same day when the Section 9 application was allowed, the suit came to be dismissed.

2. A Second appeal preferred by the judgment debtors came to be dismissed in S.A.No. 925 of 2012, by a judgment and decree dated 22.08.2023. E.P.No.1781 of 2012 was filed for recovery of vacant possession from the judgment debtors under Order 21 Rule 35 of Civil Procedure Code. Pending the Execution Petition, the revision petitioners filed a memo before the Executing Court bringing it to the notice of the Court as well as the decree holders that the 1^st respondent, 2^nd respondent as well as 5^th respondent had died on 15.01.2021, 28.09.2012 and 15.02.2015 respectively. The matter came up before the Executing Court on 10.07.2025, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners entered appearance for judgment debtors 3 and 4, the court recorded the factum of death of judgment debtors 1, 2, 5 and 7. Service of notice on the 6^th judgment debtor was recorded as served and consequently the 6^th judgment debtor was set ex-parte.

3. A memo was filed on 14.07.2025 by the learned counsel enclosing copies of death certificates and legal heirship certificates. The Execution Petition was adjourned to 22.07.2025. On 22.07.2025, it was brought to the notice of the Executing Court that the decree holders had filed an application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC read with Section 50 of CPC, for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtors. The execution petition stood adjourned to 30.07.2025. However on 06.08.2025, the decree holder filed a memo stating that there was no necessity to implead the legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors 2 and 5 as they were not recognized as tenants or assignees of the original tenant. The 1^st revision petitioner filed his objections to the said memo on 11.08.2025. After a couple of hearings in the Execution Petition, the Executing Court accepted the memo filed by the decree holder raising steps for deceased judgment debtors 1, 2, 5 and 7 by order dated 29.08.2025. Challenging the said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.R.Natrajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the ejectment suit was initially filed against only two defendants and subsequently defendants 3 to 8 have been impleaded in this suit. The order permitting the impleadment was not challenged by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff. According to Mr.Natrajan, no doubt the revision petitioners had suffered a decree for recovery of vacant possession up to this Court in Second Appeal proceedings. However, he would contend that merely because the judgment debtors have suffered a decree and their request for sale of the property under Section 9 of the City Tenants Protection Act has been declined, it does not give a window to the decree holders to dispense with even bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtors.

5. The learned counsel would rely on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Kanchamalai Pathar vs Ry. Shahaji Rajah Sahib (deceased) and others, reported in 43 Mad LW 238. The learned counsel would also invite my attention to Section 50 of the Civil Pr