SHIV KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.)THE question that falls for consideration in this revision is whether a decree passed against a dead person without impleading his legal representatives, is a nullity ?
(2.)THIS question emerges from the circumstances set out herein below : (i) Suit for eviction was decreed in favour of petitioner decree holder Bhagesh Chandra (for short decree-holder) and against Laxman Das on April 20, 1995. Indisputably Laxman Das had died on March 28, 1995 but his legal representatives were not brought on record. (ii) Execution proceedings were initiated by decree-holder for executing the said decree against Laxman Das. Mahesh and Vidya Devi filed objection petition before the executing Court to the effect that decree being passed against a dead person, without bringing his legal representatives on record, was a nullity and could not have been executed. The petition was opposed by the decree-holder. (iii) The executing Court vide order dated March 22, 1996 allowed the objection petition and after observing that decree was a nullity, dismissed the execution proceedings. (iv) The decree-holder being aggrieved, has preferred this revision.
The learned Counsel for the decree-holder submitted that the view taken by the executing Court was erroneous and it had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to execute the decree. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Rahima Khatun v. Samser Ali, AIR 1985 Gau 40 and Bhagirath Mal v. Bhagwan Dutt, AIR 1996 Raj 27.

(3.)THE learned Counsel for the present opposite parties, on the other hand, canvassed that decree was passed against a dead person was a nullity and the executing Court had rightly declined to execute the same. He placed reliance on Sub-Divisional Jhalawar v. Madan Lal, 1984 RLW 347.