O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 12.02.2020 passed in E.A. No. 4820 of 2018 in E.P. No. 255 of 2003 in O.S. No. 855 of 1972 on the file of X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The deceased decree holder filed E.P.No.255 of 2003 for executing the sale deed of the schedule mentioned property. The revision petitioner is the seventh judgment debtor in the E.P. No. 255 of 2003. Earlier, she has filed a petition under Section 47 of CPC and on dismissal of the same, C.R.P. No. 1174 of 2005 was preferred by her. The said CRP was dismissed as infructuous on 17.07.2017 on the ground that Execution Petition was closed. During the pendency of the Execution Petition, Ali Mohammed Sait / decree holder expired on 21.05.2011. Then only the legal heirs of the decree holder came to know that the execution petition was closed on 20.12.2016. Therefore, they have filed E.A. No. 4820 of 2018 under Section 146 of CPC to implead themselves as legal heirs of the deceased decree holder and the same was allowed on 12.02.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/Seventh judgment debtor filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree holder expired on 21.05.2011 and as such the respondents 1 to 8 herein ought to have filed the petition to implead them as legal heirs immediately on the death of the decree holder. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents have not impleaded themselves as parties to the Execution Petition, however, the present petition to implead themselves as legal heirs was filed belatedly. The Execution Petition was filed in the year 2003 during which the decree holder was alive and the Execution Petition was pending for 5 years 7 months before it was closed. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents 1 to 8 filed petition in E.A.SR.No.44120 of 2017 to condone the delay in impleading themselves as legal representatives and it is still pending. It is further submitted that the respondents 1 to 8 failed to show that they are legal heirs of deceased Ali Mohammed Sait by filing a legal heir certificate before the Execution Court though it is not enough to implead themselves in the Execution Petition, in view of Section 214 of Indian Succession Act and Section 48 of Mohammedan Law. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that during the pendency of the Execution Petition, Ali Mohammed Sait expired on 21.05.2011. The respondents filed a memo to record the death of their father in the above said Civil Revision Petition. Thereafter, respondents 1 to 8 were impleaded in the Civil Revision Petition. The respondents were under the impression that further proceedings in the Execution Petition was stopped since the Civil Revision Petition is pending before this Court. Thus, it is submitted that the respondents did not file any petition to implead themselves as legal heirs in the Execution Petition.

5. Further, when the CRP.No.1174 of 2005 was listed before this Court on

17.07.2017, the petitioner herein had informed the Court that E.P. was closed on 20th December 2016 and hence, the said CRP was infructuous and the same was withdrawn. Then only, the respondents 1 to 8 herein came to know that E.P.No.255 of 2003 was closed on 20th December 2016.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 further contends that E.P.

Original papers were sent to the High Court and in the absence of original papers, on note papers, the order of closure of E.P. has been recorded. In the meantime, CRP was not listed for quite a long time, therefore, the petitioners missed following up of the case, which is neither willful nor wanton but due to the said reasons.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8 further contends that the decree holder's valuable property interest will be lost and the hard earned judgmen