RIFAKAT ALI Vs. SHYAM SUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners, who are judgment debtors, filed an objection to the further execution of the decree on the ground that the heirs of the deceased-decree-holder have not been brought on the record and, therefore, this execution cannot proceed. The executing Court rejected this object and continued with the execution. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed a revision before the revisional Court. The revisional Court has categorically recorded a finding that there is no dispute that during the pendency of the execution and after the death of the deceased decree-holder their heirs have executed a relinquishment deed in favour of remaining decree-holders. In this view of the matter provision of Order XXI, Rule 15 is applicable and there is no defect which may bar the execution of the decree.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ramendra Asthana, argued that reading Order XXII, Rule 12 CPC along with Order XXI, Rule 15 and in view of law laid down by this Court reported in Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1957 Allahabad 647, which is a Division Bench decision, and a recent decision Makkhan Lal Jaiswal v. Executive Engineer reported in 2002 (1) Allahabad Weekly Cases 662 (AIR 2002 All 75). He particularly relied upon para 6 of the judgment which is reproduced below: