Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.:- In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner raised his sole grievance against the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the executing court, whereby an application filed for impleading the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman, judgment-debtor, the execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “the Code”) was declined and the execution petition was consigned to the record room.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Abdul Rehman, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, which was dismissed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.4.1995. However, the appeal carried by the petitioner was allowed and the suit was decreed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 11.1.1996 which was affirmed by this Court in regular second appeal vide judgment and decree dated 16.5.2000. The petitioner thereafter filed execution petition under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code with the averment that the judgment-debtor, i.e. Abdul Rehman was not obeying the decree which was passed in his favour and had started changing the nature of the property and, therefore, action be taken against him. During the pendency of the execution petition, Abdul Rehman had died. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application to implead the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Rehman. The executing court dismissed the said application vide order dated 16.11.2007 and ordered that the execution petition be consigned to the record room which has given cause of action to the petitioner to file the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the executing court has erred in rejecting the application for impleading the legal heirs of deceased Abdul Rehman and in consigning the execution petition to the record room as the execution petition can be enforced against the legal heirs also on the death of the original judgment-debtor as per Section 50 of the Code. He has placed reliance upon a judgment of Kerala High Court rendered in Kathiyammakutty Umma v. Thalakkadath Kattil Karappan and others, AIR 1989 Kerala 133 in support of his submission.

4. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Bawa, learned counsel for the respondents (legal heirs of deceased Abdul Rehman) has submitted that the decree had conferred a right on the person who is a party to the decree and is operative only in personam against the defendant and not in rem and was, thus, not enforceable against the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman. According to the learned counsel, the executing court was right in declining the application for impleading the legal heirs in the execution petition and also consigning the same to the record room.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance.

6. I find merit in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Section 50 of the Code reads thus:-

“50. Legal representative.- (1) Where a judgmentdebtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased.

(2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit.”

7. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the decree-holder can apply to the executing court for implementation of the same against the legal heirs of the deceased and under sub-section (2), it has been p