AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard the counsel.
The CRP is filed as against an order dated 17.7.2003 made in EP. No. 80 of 2002 in OS. No. 313 of 1988 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsaraopet.
It is stated that the EP was already pending and some amount had been realized and during the pendency of the EP., the decree holder died and his legal representatives were brought on record, but, an objection was taken that the EP cannot be proceeded with for non-production of Succession Certificate. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Akula Mabukhan Vs. Rajamma and Others, :wherein the Division Bench held that it is only an application for execution filed by a person that comes within the prohibition enacted in Section 214(1)(b). It does not apply to a person, who seeks to come on record as the legal representative of a decree holder for the purpose of continuing that application. Consequently the continuance of an execution petition filed by the decree holder himself, by his legal representatives after the death of the decree holder is not hit at by Section 214(1)(b) and the legal representative need not produce succession certificate to continue the execution. In fact the Division Bench had referred to several decisions and ultimately arrived at the said conclusion. In view of the same, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly the CRP is hereby allowed. No costs.
It is stated that the EP is sufficiently an old one. It is needless to say that the learned Judge to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter at the earliest point of time.