JUDGMENT - DESAI A.A., J.:---This second appeal by the original judgment-debtor raises somewhat intricate and interesting question as to whether the execution is liable to be set aside, since abates owing to omission to substitute legal representatives within the period prescribed by residuary Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 of a judgment-debtor who died subsequent to passing of a decree but before initiation of execution proceedings? 2. The trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 256/58 for partition, on 7-10-1970 had drawn a decree in terms of compromise. The judgment-debtor original defendant No. 3 Subhadrabai died on 28-7-1972. The defendant No. 1 Lachhiramsingh died on 30-7-1973. The respondents who are the legal representatives of decree-holder Lachhiramsingh on 17-2-1978 initiated an execution of a decree for partition showing the appellants as legal representatives of deceased judgment-debtor Subhadrabai. 3. The appellants raised an objection that the legal representatives of judgment-debtor Subhadrabai were not brought in the decree within the period of 3 years from the date of death of Subhadrabai as per residuary Article 137 of the Limitation Act. They, therefore, prayed that the execution is liable to be struck down. The trial Court rejected the objection. In appeal, the order was maintained. It is held that the decree-holder can join the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor simultaneously along with the execution. It is observed that Article 137 of the Limitation Act has no application and matter is governed by Article 136 of the Act which prescribes the limitation of 12 years for execution of a decree. 4. Shri V.M. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the appellants made a submission that in view of the provisions laid down under Order 22, Rule 4(3) of the Code of Civil procedure, if no application is made within the time limit prescribed by law, for bringing legal representatives of one of the defendants, the suit abates. According to Shri Kulkarni, Article 127 prescribes 3 years' limitation for such an application. He then contended that same period would be applicable for bringing legal representatives on record of the deceased judgment-debtor. Order 22, Rule 4 has an application in case of death of one of the defendants during the pendency of a suit. In case of non-compliance under Order 22, Rule 4, it is the suit that abates. He then contended that same period would be applicable for bringing legal representatives on record of the deceased judgment-debtor. Order 22, Rule 4 has an application in case of death of one of the defendants during the pendency of a suit. In case of non-compliance under Order 22, Rule 4, it is the suit that abates. These provisions, however, cannot be extended and made applicable to the proceedings of execution of a decree. Even otherwise as laid down under Order 22, Rule 6, the suit does not abate if death occurs after the completion of a hearing. 5. Even otherwise, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which according to me, has no application in the instant case, prescribes the starting point of limitation when right accrues to apply. The right accrues in such a case only when there is any proceeding in pursuance of a decree. Even if the death occurs before filing of execution, right does not accrue for applying since there is no pendency of proceedings. In this case right accrues in favour of the judgment-debtors only when they seek execution of a decree. Even otherwise the legal representatives can be brought on record just at the initiation of execution when such proceedings are within limitation, prescribed therefor. 6. Shri Kulkarni the learned Counsel for the appellants made a submission that the limitation under Article 137 is applicable to an application to be made under Order 21, Rule 50(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the same analogy, period of limitation as provided under the Act of 1963 vide Article 137 would be applicable for bringing legal representatives of a dead judgment debtor. He placed reliance on decisions reported in A.I.R. 1932 Bom. 516, (Bhagwan v. Hiraji)1, A.I.R. 1939 Sind 161, (Seoomal Khemchand v. Sh. Lahnibai)2, and A.I.R. 1966 Allahabad 409, (Uma Shankar Mehrotra v. Kanodia Brothers, Kanpur)3. It is laid down that for execution of a decree against a firm, a permission under sub-clause (2) of Rule 50 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be necessary. Such application is ancillary in the execution proceedings and it is maintainable if the execution itself is not beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The rule laid down has no application to the instant case. Such application is ancillary in the execution proceedings and it is maintainable if the execution itself is not beyond the period of limitation as prescribed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The rule laid down has no application to the instant case. Even otherwise the ratio as laid down, cannot be extended in principle to an application for bringing legal representatives on record of the deceased judgment-debtor. Article 136 of the Limitation Act prescribes 12 years as period of limitation for the execution of a decree. If the death of one of the judgment- debtors occurs before initiation of proceedings for execution and such initiation is within the period prescribed by Article 136, it is permissible for the decree-holder to place on record legal representative of a deceased judgement-debtor at the time of initiation of the proceedings. No independent application in advance, before the decree is put to execution, is legally necessary. In the event of death of one of the judgment-debtors, the decree does not need any amendment by substituting his legal representatives. According to Shri Kulkarni, such a decree needs correction in view of the provisions laid down under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This section provides amendments in decrees or orders if there are any clerical, or arithmetical mistakes. The amendment contemplated by this section is for rectification of the mistakes or errors occurred in the decree. And such mistake or error is apparent on the face of material on record. However, the death of one of the judgment-debtors after passing of the decree cannot be styled or termed as clerical or arithmetical mistake. The amendment cannot be resorted for bringing legal representatives on record through a media of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 152 has no application. 7. In the result, the appeal must fail. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There would, however, be no orders as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -----