' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---This civil revision is directed against order dated 02.2.2012 passed by 4th Additional District Judge Central, Karachi Central in execution application No. 01 of 2009 (Civil Suit No. 13 of 2006) whereby execution application was allowed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this revision application are that respondent/DH filed summary suit No. 13 of 2006 against JD/defendant, which was decreed in his absence though he had contested the suit but later on disappeared after moving an application for seeking leave to defend the suit. Ex-parte proof was filed by respondent/DH re-affirming the contents of his plaint, resultantly, suit of respondent/DH was decreed on 28.09.2007 and decree was issued on 05.10.2007.
Execution application No. 01 of 2009 was filed on 15.12.2008 and notice thereon was issued to JD/defendant, in pursuance thereof, legal heirs of JD/defendant appeared in the learned Trial Court and filed an application under Order XXII, Rule 4, C.P.C., which was dismissed on 29.11.2010, thereafter, respondent/DH moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. And vide order dated 06.05.2011 Legal heirs of JD/defendant were joined in the execution application. They contested the execution application on the sole ground that it was filed against dead person. The objection raised by the applicants was overruled and execution application was allowed by the executive court vide impugned order.
3. It is inter alia contended on behalf of the applicants that the execution application was filed one year after the death of deceased JD/defendant and this fact was very much in the knowledge of respondent/DH, thus, execution application was barred under Order XXIV Rule 12, C.P.C.; that the executing Court without deciding the legal question of maintainability, allowed the execution application, as such, order is not to be sustainable in law and has prayed for setting aside the impugned order as well as judgment and decree passed in the suit No. 13 of 2006. The learned counsel for applicants in support of his contentions has relied upon 2004 YLR 1728, 1997 CLC 152 and 1999 YLR 2336.
4. Learned counsel for respondents has argued that the order of learned Trial Court is in accordance with the law; no illegality or irregularity is pointed out therefore, his revision petition is not maintainable.
5. I have given my patient hearing to the arguments advanced at bar and have gone through the R & Ps. The main contention of applicants before learned Trial Court was that, if execution application against dead person was maintainable. It is admitted fact on record that JD/defendant had expired on 02.01.2008 and the judgment and decree against him in Suit No.13 of 2006 was passed on 28.09.2007 and 05.10.2007 and thus it was clear that the JD/defendant was alive at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and decree in the suit and applicants/L.Rs. Of deceased JD/defendant appeared before the executing Court and sought permission through the application under Order XX, A Rule 4 C.P.C. For bringing them on record. The executing Court in view of circumstances held that execution application of respondent/DH having been filed on the basis of Judgment and decree passed during the life time of JD/defendant was maintainable under sections 50 and 52 C . P. C .
6. This revision application is brought against the impugned order with same kind of objections.
Advocate for applications has argued that decree cannot be executed against legal heirs of deceased JD/defendant. To perceive the instant controversy in its actual perspective, it is significant to reproduce section 50, C.P.C. Which reads as under:--
5. Legal representative.---(1) Where a judgment debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased.
(2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be .Liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been fully disposed of; and, for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit.
7. It is very clear from the above provision of law that holder of decree may apply to the Court which passed it against the legal representative of the deceased judgment debtor, however, it is stated in subsection (2) of ibid section that decree against legal heirs shall be executable to the extent of property of deceased JD, which has come to his hands and not been disposed of and further executing Court may on its own motion or on the application of decree holder, compel such legal heirs to produce such account as its thinks fit. There is no room left, which could support the contentions raised by the applicant's counsel that decree cannot be executed against legal heirs of deceased/JP. In my view, if deceased left any assets at the time of his death decree. Is to be satisfied from said account. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for applicants are all on different facts and have no relevancy or application so far facts of this case are concerned.
8. For the reasons discussed above, the impugned order contains no illegality or irregularity and learned executive Court has not exceeded his powers by passing the impugned order, which on the face of it is proper and accordingly the same is maintained. Revision application stands dismissed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.