Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, original defendants in a civil suit, challenged the order dated 04.07.2015 rejecting their MARJI No.527/2012 seeking restoration of Regular Darkhast No.119/1997. The execution application had been filed by the original decree-holder (since deceased) to execute a decree. The judgment-debtor died during the pendency of the execution application, and the legal representatives of the decree-holder failed to bring the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor on record within the prescribed period of limitation. Consequently, the execution application abated under Order 22 Rule 12 read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitioners, as legal representatives of the original defendants, sought restoration of the abated execution application, which was rejected by the executing court. The High Court, after considering submissions and precedents, held that once an execution application abates, it cannot be restored. The court distinguished the judgments cited by the petitioners, noting that they pertained to restoration of suits or appeals, not execution applications. The court upheld the impugned order, dismissing the writ petition. The decision reinforces the principle that execution proceedings are governed by the same rules of abatement as suits, and failure to substitute legal representatives within limitation leads to final abatement.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Execution of Decree - Abatement of Execution Application - Order 22 Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Execution application abates if legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor are not brought on record within the period of limitation - The court held that the execution application (Regular Darkhast No.119/1997) had abated due to the death of the judgment-debtor and failure to substitute legal representatives within time, and restoration under MARJI was not maintainable (Paras 6-10).
B) Limitation - Execution Application - Article 137, Limitation Act, 1963 - Period of limitation for filing execution application is 12 years from the date of decree becoming enforceable - The court noted that the execution application was filed within time but abated due to non-substitution of legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor (Para 6).
C) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Execution Application - MARJI - Order 22 Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Once execution application abates, it cannot be restored by filing a MARJI (restoration application) - The court upheld the rejection of MARJI No.527/2012 as the execution application had already abated (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an execution application (Regular Darkhast) abates on the death of the judgment-debtor and whether the legal representatives of the decree-holder can seek restoration of such abated execution application.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order dated 04.07.2015 rejecting MARJI No.527/2012. The court held that the execution application (Regular Darkhast No.119/1997) had abated due to the death of the judgment-debtor and failure to substitute legal representatives within limitation, and restoration was not maintainable.
Law Points
- Execution application abates on death of judgment-debtor if legal representatives not brought on record within limitation
- Order 22 Rule 12 CPC
- Article 137 Limitation Act
- 1963
- restoration of execution application not permissible after abatement
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (09) 11
WRIT PETITION NO. 10439 OF 2015
Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar h/f Shri Mohammad Waseemullah for Petitioners, Shri Adwant S.V. a/w Ms.Neha B. Kamble for Respondents
Shaikh Chand s/o Shaikh Ahmed (died per legal representatives: Sk.Pashu s/o Sk.Chand, Sk.Ismail s/o Sk.Chand, Sk.Ibrahim s/o Sk.Chand, Sk.Issak s/o Sk.Chand, Sk.Yakub s/o Sk.Chand)
Zaitunbee w/o Shaikhlal (died per legal representatives: Khatoonbee w/o Sk. Amir, Najmabegum w/o Sadaruddin)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of MARJI (restoration application) seeking restoration of abated execution application (Regular Darkhast).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (original defendants) sought restoration of Regular Darkhast No.119/1997 which had abated due to death of judgment-debtor and failure to substitute legal representatives.
Filing Reason
The execution application abated because the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor were not brought on record within the period of limitation.
Previous Decisions
The executing court rejected MARJI No.527/2012 on 04.07.2015, holding that the execution application had abated and could not be restored.
Issues
Whether an execution application (Regular Darkhast) abates on the death of the judgment-debtor if legal representatives are not brought on record within limitation?
Whether a MARJI (restoration application) is maintainable to restore an abated execution application?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the execution application should be restored relying on judgments regarding restoration of suits and appeals.
Respondents contended that the execution application had abated and restoration was not permissible, citing judgments on abatement of execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
An execution application abates under Order 22 Rule 12 CPC if the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor are not brought on record within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Once abated, the execution application cannot be restored by filing a MARJI (restoration application). The principles of abatement apply equally to execution proceedings as to suits.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2015 by which MARJI No.527/2012 filed by the Petitioners seeking restoration of Regular Darkhast No.119/1997 has been rejected.
After considering the submissions of the learned Advocates and upon going through the judgments cited, the undisputed factors can be summarized as under: (a) The Petitioners herein are the original Defendants. (b) Regular Civil Suit No.119/1997 was decreed. (c) The Decree Holder filed Regular Darkhast No.119/1997 for execution of the decree. (d) The Judgment Debtor expired. (e) The legal representatives of the Judgment Debtor were not brought on record. (f) The execution application abated.
Procedural History
Regular Civil Suit was decreed. Decree-holder filed Regular Darkhast No.119/1997 for execution. Judgment-debtor died during pendency of execution. Legal representatives of decree-holder failed to substitute legal representatives of judgment-debtor within limitation. Execution application abated. Petitioners (original defendants) filed MARJI No.527/2012 seeking restoration of execution application. Executing court rejected MARJI on 04.07.2015. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.10439/2015 challenging that order. High Court dismissed the writ petition on 07.09.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 22 Rule 12
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 137
