APPLICATION TO EXECUTE A DECREE AGAINST THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED JUDGMENT DEBTOR
IN THE COURT OF THE………………..
Misc. Application………………… of………. 19………………..
Under Section 146 C. P. C.
in
Execution No…………………. of………… 19………………..
A. B………………………………………………. Decree-Holder.
versus
C. D…………………………………………. Judgment Debtors.
The Decree-Holder most respectfully submits as under:
1. That the judgment debtor Shri……………….. of the decree aforementioned died on……………….. 19……………….. and his property has come in the hands of his legal representatives, the Opposite Parties, being the sons of the original judgment debtor.
2. That it is expedient that the decree may be executed against the opposite parties, the legal representatives of the original judgment debtor.
3. That the Opposite Parties may be called for deposit of the decreetal amount in Court and satisfy the decree.
PRAYER
It, is therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Hon’our may be pleased to summon the opposite parties and order them to deposit the decreetal amount in Court.
Dated……………….. 19……………….. Counsel for the Decree-Holders.
CASE LAW
Section 146
SCOPE OF THE SECTION
This section is introduced in the Code with the object of facilitating the exercise of rights by persons in whom they came to be vested by devolution or assignment. Whether the application for addition of party under this section is held earlier or simultaneously, the list is then pending. The only legal order that can be legitimately passed in these circumstances would be to enquire into the application of the transferee and to dispute of the compromise petition thereafter. When after passing of decree and before filing of the appeal against it, the decree holder transfers his interest and the decree-holder, joined as a respondent dies during the pendency of the appeal, the transferee can under this section apply for substitution as a respondent in place of the person already joined as a respondent in place of the person already joined as a legal representative of the deceased decree-holder1.
There are various provisions in the Code prescribing of allowing the doing of an act for which time is fixed or granted by the Court. In all such cases the Court has powers under this Section to enlarge the time, even after expiration of the period originally fixed. The time granted by the Court for payment of costs, while setting aside an ex-pane decree, as a condition precedent, is not an act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The section does not apply to such a case. On the other hand, section 151 can however be invoked in such a case2.
1. Prahlad Misra v. Narasingha Mahapatra, I. L. R. (1965) Cut. 523: 32 Cut. L. T. 570.
2. Kanduri Sahu v. Nidhi Sahu, A.I.R. 1966 Orissa 44: I. L. R. (1965) Cut. 506: 31 Cut. L. T. 757.