R.L.ANAND, J. - (1.) THIS is a Civil Revision directed against the order dated 8.3.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon (the Executing Court), which dismissed the objections of Mahesh Judgment Debtor (defendant No. 2 in the main suit). Some facts can be noticed in the following manner :- "One civil suit No. 186 of 1985 was filed by Surjan, Smt. Sheo Bai, Smt. Lodha Bai, Smt. Bharbari, Smt. Ratta Bai and Smt. Chando. The plaintiffs are the son and daughters of Nathu. The suit was filed against Smt. Kamal Bai and Mahesh Singh. The suit was decreed on 27.9.1990 and a decree for possession was passed." During the pendency of the suit, name of Surjan as plaintiff No. 1 was deleted and struck off his application vide order dated 28.11.1988 thus, the suit proceeded on behalf of Smt. Sheo Bai and her four daughters. The Decree Holder filed an execution petition and claimed possession. Execution was filed by Ashok Kumar claiming himself to be the transferee of Smt. Lodha Bai and LR of Lodha Bai against Smt. Kamal Bai and Mahesh Singh. Mahesh Singh is in actual physical possession of the land in question. He filed objections against the decree on the plea that the decree is nullity. It has been obtained only in the name of a dead person Smt. Lodha Bai. Other plaintiffs i.e. sisters of Smt. Lodha Bai have not filed the execution. Therefore, the execution cannot proceed at the instance of Ashok Kumar, who in fact, is a legal representative of Smt. Lodha Bai. In short, the grouse of the objector Mahesh Singh is that the execution has been filed on behalf of the LR of a person who is dead as the suit was filed in the name of Smt. Lodha Bai. Since the other decree holders have not filed the execution, therefore, the LRs of Smt. Lodha Bai cannot ask for possession."
(2.) THE objections of Mahesh Singh were resisted by the applicants of the execution application. The trial Court dismissed the objections vide the impugned order and thus Mahesh Singh aggrieved by the impugned order has come in the present revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
(3.) IT is the basic principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. The specific objection of the Mahesh Singh is that Smt. Lodha Bai died on 20.12.1984 even much prior to the filing of the suit in the year 1985 and in these circumstances, the suit itself was bad institution because it had been filed in the name of a dead person. On these premises, Mr. Jain submitted that when a decree in favour of a dead person is nullity, the alleged execution cannot proceed on the behest of LR of a dead person.;