The execution of a decree for specific performance does not require the presentation of a draft deed if a valid draft exists on record, and payment into court suffices for compliance.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on behalf of the judgment - duebtor arises out of execution proceedings started by the decree - holders herein.

2. The facts which give rise to this appeal are: Chaganlal, Prahlad Rai and Nanu Ram as plaintiffs brought a suit for specific performance against Chandravati Bai, the appellant in the Original Side of the High Court of Hyderabad and obtained a decree, which is in the following terms:
"The defendant execute the sale deed within two months of the date of this judgment on the plaintiffs paying the balance of the price i.e., Rs.15,500/-. If the plaintiffs were to fail in presenting the sale deed to the defendant for execution and registration with the balance only of the price money, this suit shall stand dismissed. On the other hand, if the defendant were to fail to execute and register the sale deed on its presentation together with the balance of the price money, this Court will execute and register the sale deed and arrange for delivery of its possession to the plaintiff."
This decree was passed on 01/07/1952; but before the passing of the decree, Chaganlal, having died, his son Mangilal was brought on record as his legal representative. As per the decree, the balance amount was deposited by Mangilal, Prahlad Rai and Nanu Ram in Court on 2nd September, 1952, as 3lst August and 1st September 1952 happened to be holidays, and the decree - holder prayed for the execution of the decree. The judgment - debtor objected to the execution of the decree on two grounds. The first was that as the amount ordered under the decree was not tendered to the defendant within the period of two months, that cannot be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the order passed and therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed and the plaintiffs shall have no decree in their favour to stand upon.
The second ground urged was that inasmuch as a draft of the sale deed was not filed along with the money, there was not sufficient compliance with the order of the Court and that being a condition precedent, the suit would be liable to be dismissed on this account also. Both these contentions were rejected by the executing Court. Aggrieved by the order of the executing Court, Chandravati Bai had come up in appeal. During the course of the appeal, she died. Her husband has been brought on record as her legal representative.

3. A preliminary objection is raised on behalf of the respondents that in as much as Nanu Ram has died and the legal representation petition filed by the appellant not having been filed within the prescribed period, the appeal will not abate against him alone but in toto, having regard to the nature of the decree. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that as R.3, R.4 and R.8 of O.22 do not apply to proceedings in execution of the decree or order as provided in R.12 of O.22, the question of bringing the legal representative on record within the prescribed period and the appeal having abated does not arise.
It is further urged that even if it is held that R.12 of O.22 is not applicable to appeals, the delay in filing the application to bring the legal representative on record be condoned, as the appellant was seriously ill for seven months and was confined to bed. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that in the execution proceedings, the fact of the death of Nanu Ram was brought to the notice of the appellant on 10/12/1958 and the appellant had filed a counter and as no explanation has been given why after 10/12/1958 at least steps were not taken t