The legal representatives of a deceased decree-holder can continue the execution proceeding under Section 146 of the CPC without a succession certificate under Section 214 of the Succession Act.

B. K. BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision has been directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif, Sambalpur, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner being the judgment-debtor in Execution Case No. 2 of 1975 with regard to the maintainability and continuance of the proceeding against him by the opposite parties for his eviction in pursuance of the order passed in November, 1974, under the Orissa House Rent Control Act initiated by Devidutta Agarwalla. The petitioner had unsuccessfully moved the appellate authority under the Act and had without success moved this Court in O. J. C. No. 644 of 1977 for quashing the order of eviction which was dismissed on December 1, 1977.

( 2 ) THE petitioner made an application under Section 47 of the Civil P. C. (for short, the 'code') in the aforesaid Execution Case alleging that proper enquiry regarding the insanity of Devidutta under Order 32, Rule 15 of the Code had not been made. This application was rejected by the executing court in April, 1978 and Civil Revision No. 264 of 1978 directed against that order of rejection was dismissed by this Court. The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 3 of 1979 in the court of the Munsif, Sambalpur, alleging creation of a new tenancy on the basis of an oral agreement and obtained an interim order of stay of further proceeding in the Execution Case in February, 1979, which was made absolute on April 25, 1979. Against that order, the landlord Devidutta came to this Court in Civil Revision No. 284 of 1979 which was allowed on Mar. , 6, 1981 and the order of stay was vacated. The suit instituted by the petitioner was dismissed for default on April 29, 1982. The petitioner raised an objection under Section 47 of the Code in Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 1981 stating inter alia that the Execution Case was no more maintainable as the land on which the rented house stood had been resumed by the Stale Government. That case was dismissed on July 4, 1981 and the Civil Revision No. 369 of 1981 directed against that order was withdrawn by the petitioner on September 20, 1982.

( 3 ) THE landlord Devidutta died on Oct. 20, 1982 and on his death the present opposite parties, being his heirs and legal represeniatives, made an application under Section 146 of the Code to continue the execution proceeding initialed by Devidutta, This application was resisted by the petitioner on the grounds that (a) an application for substitution was not maintainable and a fresh Execution Case had to be instituted by the legal representatives of the decree-holder in the event of his death; (b) Smt. Sita Dei, one of the legal representatives, had not signed the application and (c) the property for which the execution was levied had been resumed by the State Government and therefore, the opposite parties, having lost their right, if any, could not continue the execution proceeding.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing both the sides and on a consideration of the materials placed before him, the learned Munsif allowed the application made by the opposite parties and rejected the objections raised by the petitioner. It is thus that the petitioner has come to this Court in this revision.

( 5 ) MR. Deepak Misra, appearing for the petitioner, has raised the same three grounds and has submitted that the Learned Munsif committed an illegality by allowing the application made by the opposite parties. Mr. S. S. Basu has submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that none of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner can prevail and this revision has been directed against the impugned order only to protect the proceedings so that the opposite parties are precluded from evicting the peti-tioneer in due course of law in the execution proceeding.

( 6 ) THE objection that Smt. Sita Devi, one of the legal representatives, had not signed the application cannot be maintained as she had examined herself and had stated that she had signed the application. The executing court rightly overruled