Execution proceedings remain pending despite the death of a judgment-debtor; legal heirs can be added at any time based on CPC provisions.

1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge legality and validity of the order dated 25-1-2006, passed by the 9th Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Durg, in execution case No. 10 - A / 2000, whereby the application of the decree - holders (the respondents) to bring legal heirs of the judgment - debtor namely Ram Bharos Chhapariya, was allowed.

2. The indisputable facts, in brief are that a decree was passed on 20-4-2001 (Annexure P / 1) against Ram Bharos Chhapariya. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, Ram Bharos Chhapariya died on 1-3-2003. The respondents decree - holders filed an application on 27-3-2004 for bringing the legal heirs of the deceased judgment - debtor on record which was allowed by the executing Court. Thus, this petition.

3. Shri Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since an application for bringing legal heirs of the judgment - debtor on record was not moved within a period of 90 days, the execution proceeding abated and as such the application for bringing the legal heirs of the judgment - debtor could not have been allowed after a period of 90 days. Shri Tiwari relies on S.50 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (for short 'the CPC')

4. Per contra, Shri Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Limitation Act , 1963 is not applicable in case of bringing legal heirs of the judgment - debtor on record as is evident from the provisions of O.22, R.12 of the CPC and the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali , 1998 (3) SCC 148 : AIR 1998 SC 1168 and Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas , 2007 (2) SCC 355 : AIR 2007 SC 1077 .

5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On bare perusal of the O.22, R.12 it is evident that the R.3, R.4 and R.8 of the O.22 of CPC are not applicable to the proceedings in execution of a decree or order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri V. Uthirapathi (supra), while considering the limitation period in making the application for bringing legal heirs on record in execution proceedings, observed as under :
"10. If during the pendency of a regular execution proceeding filed on the basis of a decree or order of a civil Court, the decree - holder or the judgment - debtor dies and his legal representatives are not brought on record within ninety days, can the civil Court dismiss the execution petition as abated?
11. O.22, R.12 of the Code of Civil Procedure , reads as follows :
"O.22, R.12 : Application of order to proceedings - Nothing in R.3, R.4 and R.8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order."
12. In other words, the normal principle arising in a suit - before the decree is passed - the legal representatives are to be brought on record within a particular period and if not, the suit could abate - is not applicable to cases of death of the decree - holder or the judgment - debtor in execution proceedings.
13 and 14.  xxxx xxxx xxxx
15. It is clear, therefore, that if after the filing of an execution petition in time, the decree - holder dies and his legal representatives do not come on record - or the judgment - debtor dies and his legal representatives are not brought on record, then there is no abatement of the execution petition. If there is no abatement, the position in the eye of law is that the execution petition remains pending on the file of the execution Court. If it remains pending and if no time limit is prescribed to bring the legal representatives on record, in execution proceedings, it is open in case of death of