JUDGMENT

1. Kuar Jang Bahadur, a judgment debtor in various execution proceedings, has instituted four appeals Nos. 29, 30, 42 and 43 of 1924 against certain orders of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi passed during those execution proceedings. There is a considerable amount of confusion in the appeals because separate orders in separate execution proceedings have not been made the subjects of separate appeals. There are three execution proceedings Nos. 174, 175 and 176 of 1916 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi and Kuar Jang Bahadur's objections to the continuation of those proceedings were all dismissed, yet appeal No. 29 has been filed with respect to the dismissal of objection in execution case No. 175 of 1916 only. The judgment creditor in all the three execution proceedings is the Bank of Upper India in liquidation. As to appeal No. 30 the mistake is made of filing a joint appeal against two separate decree-holders, Jagat Narain minor and Munshi Lal. Appeals Nos. 29, 42 and 43 raise one single question.

2. We shall consider the facts of the case in which the decree-holder is the Bank of Upper India in liquidation. The decree was passed on 29th April 1916, by the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow against Raja Durga, Prasad father of the appellant, Jang Bahadur. It was transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi the same year under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree was one for sale on foot of a mortgage and as the property sought to be sold was ancestral property the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi transferred the proceedings in sale to the Collector of Hardoi under Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After this action was taken, Raja Durga Prasad died on 23rd April 1920. On 22nd June 1920, the Bank applied to have the decree executed against the appellant Jang Bahadur. The application was one for substitution of name, but according to law the proper procedure was to apply for execution against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor. The provisions relating to substitution of names contained in Order 22 do not apply to execution proceedings as laid down in Rule 12 of that Order. Notice was issued to Jang Bahadur as required by Order 21, Rule 22, (1)(6) but after service Jang Bahadur made no appearance. Proceedings in execution were therefore taken against him by order dated 4th August 1920. During these proceedings Jang Bahadur made various objections both in the Court of the Subordinate Judge and before the Collector. After these proceedings had continued for 31/2 yews Jang Bahadur applied to the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi on 10th April 1924, for an order that all proceedings in that Court subsequent to the date of the death of his father were without jurisdiction and should be set aside. This prayer was refused by the Subordinate Judge by his order dated 22ad of April 1924, and the present appeal No. 29 is filed from one of these orders.

3. It may be mentioned that the money due to the Bank at present is over 4 lakhs of rupees and since 1916 neither the appellant nor his father has made any payment. For one reason or another the sale of the property has been postponed. Now the appellant thinks that he has discovered means of avoiding payment altogether. The argument put forward on his behalf is that he was wrongly brought on the record by the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi who had no jurisdiction to do so, as under Section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure only the Court which passed the decree can receive application for execution of the decree against the legal representative of a deceased judgment debtor. According to this argument the Court at Hardoi had no jurisdiction to receive such an application and take proceedings thereon and all proceedings should be stopped until a proper application for execution is made by the decree-bolder in the Court having jurisdiction. The aim obviously is that when the decree holder applies to the Court of the S