KSHETRA MOHAN PADDAR Vs. AZIZULLAH MEA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Subordinate Judge has, I think, erred on both the grounds on which be rejected the application for substitution. THE concluding portion of the ruling to which he refers--Mahomed Yusuf v. Abdur Rahim 26 C. 839 : 4 C.W.N. 558 : 13 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1138-- shows that it is rot necessary to take out a certificate under the Succession Certificate Act when the decree-holder has died during the pendency of the execution proceedings. As regards the second point, it is only necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Rakhal Chandra Tewary 3 Ind. Cas. 324 : 14 C.W.N. 752 at p. 753 : 10 C.L.J. 396 and more particularly to the remark at page 753 Page of 14 C.W.N.--Ed. in the paragraph commencing with "On behalf of the respondent a preliminary objection has been taken."

(2.) THE Rule is made absolute and the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated the 2nd December 1919, refusing substitution is get aside. Substitution will be made as prayed for and execution will proceed.