' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order, dated 7-12-1998 whereby civil revision filed by the petitioner Mst. Sakina Bibi and Muhammad Anwar and Mst.
Ahmed Bibi respondents Nos.3 and 4 was dismissed.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that a suit for specific performance of an agreement was filed against Siraj Din deceased, father of the petitioner, which was decreed as far back as 28- 5-1985. An appeal against the said judgment and decree was allowed and it was challenged in the High Court and finally the matter was resolved by this Court as far back as 1994. After the resolution of the controversy, an execution petition was filed and in the aforesaid proceedings the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed objection petitions, but the same were dismissed vide order, dated 30-7-1996. An appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order, dated 5-3-1998. Both the executing Court and the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that under Order XXII, rule 4, C.P.C., non joinder of legal heirs of either party was of no consequence because on behalf of the petitioner Mst. Sakina Bibi, it was contended that the decree was not binding on her because she was not a party to the proceedings. In fact the respondent Muhammad Anwar is a tenant and the petitioner Mst. Sakina never, got herself impleaded as a party in the main proceedings on the death of her father Siraj Din. The law governing such a situation is contained in Order XXII, rule 4, C.P.C., which makes it clear that if the legal representative of any defendant, who fails to file written statement or does not opt to contest the suit, the judgment pronounced against the said deceased shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before his death. Admittedly, the petitioner Mst. Sakina Bibi had not applied for being impleaded as a party after the death of her father Siraj Din in the main proceedings up to the Supreme Court and it was only at the execution stage that she came forward along with other claiming to be an heir of Siraj Din. The decree was passed as far back as 1985 and the matter was finally resolved by this Court in 1994, therefore, the executing Court rightly repelled her objection on the ground that it was too late in the day to entertain her objection. Similarly, the objection by the respondent Muhammad Anwar is baseless because he is a tenant. On behalf of respondent Mst.
Ahmed Bibi, nothing was urged in the High Court.
3. It was reiterated before us that Mst. Sakina Bibi's interest had been adversely affected by the rejection of the objection petition by the executing Court as well as the Appellate Court, but as already observed, admittedly she had not come forward to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings and therefore, Order XXII, rule 4, C.P.C. Was fully attracted because the said provision clearly provides that if none of the legal heirs comes forward or reply is not brought on the record, the Court would proceed in the suit and pronounce the judgment. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.