Short Note : 1. The point involved is, whether the appellants who are intermeddlers in respect of the suit house being in possession of the same can be treated as legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor Surajprasad for purposes of continuation of the execution under section 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court is of the view that the word intermeddler must be given liberal interpretation as placed in the above referred case and the appellants being admittedly in possession of the suit property, therefore, the decision of the lower appellate Court is correct and requires no interference. Baliram Hari v. Mukinda Kishan, AIR 1951 Nag. 145, relied on. Appeal dismissed.