Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
C.P. Smitha – Appellant
Versus
Kallikoottathil Sarojini – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1159 OF 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Premnath, Mani Govinda Marar, Sarath M.S.
For the Respondents: B. Premnath

Legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor must be impleaded in execution proceedings to facilitate the completion of the execution process, such as the issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of property, even where pending interim applications are challenged.

Headnote:The case concerns the procedural requirements for impleading legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor in execution proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Specifically, the matter arose after the death of the judgment debtor pending execution applications seeking to stay an auction sale. The court examined whether impleadment was necessary to proceed towards the issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of the property. The court addressed the issue of whether legal representatives must be impleaded despite the petitioner’s contention of non-necessity under Order 22 Rule 6. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that while an auction sale may have been conducted, the execution petition remains active until the final delivery of the property and issuance of the certificate; therefore, the presence of legal representatives is a procedural necessity to complete the execution process. The court disposed of the original petition by directing the petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor for the limited purpose of continuing with the execution petition, clarifying that such impleadment would not grant any substantive benefit regarding the pending applications filed by the deceased.

Table of Content
1. need for impleadment of legal representatives of deceased judgment debtors in execution proceedings. (Para 1 , 2)
2. mandatory impleadment for completion of execution, without prejudice to existing pending applications. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 order passed in EP No.16 of 2019 in OS No.35 of 2017 on the files of Sub Court, Koyilandy directing the petitioner to take steps to implead the legal representatives of the judgment debtor.

2. The petitioner submits that under Order 22 Rule 6 CPC, there is no necessity to implead. This is a case where the property was sold in execution and the judgment debtor filed two petitions: one for staying the sale conducted on 27.11.2021 and another for staying the further proceedings pursuant to the sale held on 27.11.2021. Pending the applications, the judgment debtor died. The counsel for the petitioner submits that no sale was conducted on 27.11.2021 and the sale was actually held on 13.12.2021. There is no effective challenge to the said sale. The legal representatives of the judgment debtor have also not got themselves impleaded to continue with the proceedings in Exts.P4 and P6. All that remains is issuance of sale certificate and delivery of the property pursuant to the sale held in December, 2021.

3. In the above circumstances, the original petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor for the limited purpose of continuing with the EP. Their impleadment in the execution petition, will not enure to their benefit in the EAs filed by the deceased judgment debtor.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMT.R. Ravi, JC.P. Smitha – AppellantVersusKallikoottathil Sarojini – RespondentOP(C) NO. 1159 OF 2023

Legal representatives of a deceased judgment debtor must be impleaded in execution proceedings to facilitate the completion of the execution process, such as the issuance of a sale certificate and delivery of property, even where pending interim applications are challenged.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. Ravi, J
C.P. Smitha – Appellant
Versus
Kallikoottathil Sarojini – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 1159 OF 2023