HEMCHAND KISHORILAL Vs. TEKCHAND KALLOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition for revision has been filed by Hemchand, who is one of the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor, against the order of the executing Court, dated 31-8-1957, by which he and his three sons have been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor Kishorilal and non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 have been brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased decree-holder Kalloolal. Kalloolal had obtained a decree against kishorilal on 21-3-1950. The judgment-debtor Kishorilal died on 10-11-1953 and an application to bring the petitioner and his three sons on record was filed on 6-2-1954. While this application was pending, the decree-holder Kalloolal also died on 29-10-1954 and the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 (Tekchand and Suresh-chand) applied for being brought on record in his place on 30-8-1956. Both these applications were decided by the order under revision.

(2.) THE petitioner had objected to the applications on various grounds. He denied that he was a legal representative of the deceased Kishorilal, or that the non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 were the legal representatives of the deceased Kalloolal. He stated that the anplication for bringing the legal re-presentatives of the inclement-debtor on record was not validly presented and was also barred by time. In revision he has raised the contention that both the petitions were not tenable.

(3.) IT appears from the proceedings in the lower Court that the application for bringing the legal representatives on record filed On 6-2-1954 was pending when the other application for bringing the legal representatives of the decree-holder was filed on 30-8-1956. The real question, therefore, which would arise for determination in this revision is whether the application dated 6-2-1954 was tenable and was within time, Jf it was, the application dated 30-8-1956 which was filed during the pendency of that application, as the decree-holder died, would be within time.