CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) WHEN this matter was heard last, I recorded the following in the order-sheet:-"i have neard this matter at length. Grave doubts arise as to the correctness of the order passed by this court in CRP 85/1987 which is sought to be reviewed in cp 126 of 1988. A purchaser of certain agricultural lands moved the court purportedly under Rule 99 of order 21 of the CPC seeking declaration that delivery of possession recorded in certain pending execution proceedings was not delivered at all and he continued to be in possession of the property which has been recorded to have been delivered by the court amin. On such application opposite parties who were the mortgageedecree holders who had become the purchasers in the court auction (sale) of the mortgage property and who had sought execution and delivery of possession from judgment debtor-mortgager, mortgageedecree holder had asserted his having taken possession in his statement of objections to the application numbered as miscellaneous petition No. 13 of 1979 on the file of the munsiff, gubbi. The vendor mortgager the other respondent supported the decree-holder. The decree-holder died during the pendency of miscellaneous application No. 13 of 1979 at the stage when the court had reserved the matter for orders. In that view, it felt that an application need not be filed to bring the legal representatives on record. That was recorded as the submission made by the counsel. However, it is seen, the matter appears to have been posted for further evidence on the application of one of the parties. Final order has been passed subsequently but it does not indicate whether further arguments were heard and evidence recorded. But the miscellaneous application No. 13 of 1979 has been disposed of holding that no delivery has been effected. In the circumstances, the questions which really arise are: (i) whether application made was maintainable under Rule 99 of order 21 of cpc; (ii) whether the applicant petitioner was having right, title and interest in the property in question; (iii) whether the respondent mortgageedecree holder had obtained actual possession. If these three questions were not determined then it would not be adjudication under Rule 101 r/w Rule 103. Undoubtedly this aspect was not noticed by this court. If these three questions were not determined then it would not be adjudication under Rule 101 r/w Rule 103. Undoubtedly this aspect was not noticed by this court. The question now is whether that would constitute sufficient cause to review the order which has set aside the order which was not in conformity with law. In these circumstances, it has been suggested to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the matter should not now rest as the question of right, title and interest are left open by the order made in miscellaneous application No. 13 of 1979. Nothing has been decided. Mr. Keshava lyengar prays for time to consult his client for further course of action. Call this matter on 23-11-1990. " ( 2 ) IN the meanwhile, a division bench of this court has ruled in CRP No. 4994/1989, disposed of on 29-6-1990 that if an application filed by a third party in execution proceedings resisting the claim for delivery of possession of immovable property, such an application would amount to obstruction within the meaning of Rule 97 of order 21 of CPC. ( 3 ) FROM the narration made above, the present petitioner in the civil petition for review of the order made by kulkami, j. , As he then was, in CRP No. 85 of 1987, was that the obstruction of the obstructor which was treated as miscellaneous application No. 13 of 1979 on the file of the munsiff at gubbi. During the pendency of that petition, the decree holder died as noticed by me. The matter was reserved for orders on the application filed and attempt to bring the l. rs. On record was considered unnecessary in terms of Rule 6 of order 22 of CPC. But the order passed in miscellaneous petition finally makes it abundantly clear that arguments were heard subsequent to the date on which it was decided that there was no need to bring the l. rs. On record. But it is not implicit in the order that the evidence also was recorded. In other words, at that point of time, there was need for the l. rs. To come on record but they were not brought on record. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, I must notice that the contention advanced by Mr. B. s. keshava lyengar,under Rule 12 of order 22 of CPC question of abatement; to bring the l. rs. In other words, at that point of time, there was need for the l. rs. To come on record but they were not brought on record. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, I must notice that the contention advanced by Mr. B. s. keshava lyengar,under Rule 12 of order 22 of CPC question of abatement; to bring the l. rs. Etc. , Would not arise in execution proceedings. I do not think that that would be the correct position in law. What Rule 12 does is to make the Provisions contained in rules 3,4 and 8 inapplicable to the execution proceedings but other rules by implication are attracted i. e. particularly Rule 2. ( 5 ) EVEN otherwise as held by the division bench of this court in the case of C. Deva Sigamani Mudaliar and others v Venkatasami and others, 1958 Mys. L. J. 411, Section 146 would be attracted. The language used in Section 146 is not confined to suits only. It applies to all proceedings before the court. It refers to proceedings taken by one and to be continued by any other who claims under him. Therefore, if soon after the death of the decree holder, the court did not proceed to order directly, then it could not have proceeded to either record evidence if it was recorded or proceeded to hear arguments which apparently was done and proceed to pass orders. ( 6 ) IN that view of the matter that order was without jurisdiction and patently erroneous and for that reason the order was required to be set at naught. ( 7 ) IN any event for other reasons given bythe learned judge, CRP No. 85 of 1987 came to be allowed. The effect is that the order which is otherwise illegal has been set aside and there fore in this civil petition, this court need not interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned judge in CRP No. 85 of 1987 disposed of on 21-3-1988. ( 8 ) BUT it will be useful to make an observation that what has been stated in para 11 ofthe Order, dated 21-3-1988, in CRP No. 85 of 1987 that the miscellaneous case has abated does not appear to be correct because it was the executing court which proceeded not to bring the l. rs. ( 8 ) BUT it will be useful to make an observation that what has been stated in para 11 ofthe Order, dated 21-3-1988, in CRP No. 85 of 1987 that the miscellaneous case has abated does not appear to be correct because it was the executing court which proceeded not to bring the l. rs. On record in the view it had taken having regard to Rule 6 of order 22 of CPC at an earlier stage. Therefore, in this order it is clarified that the miscellaneous petition should be treated as pending and adjudication continued after bringing the l. rs. Of the decree holder on record. The ends of Justice would then be served. ( 9 ) IN so far as respondent hanumaiah is concerned, there is no jural relationship which may subsist between the petitioner-hanumaiah in cp No. 126/1988 and respondent-nanjundaiah because nanjundaiah has stated that he handed over possession to the decree holder through the court. ( 10 ) THE executing court, in the light of whathas been observed by me, may look into this aspect also. Subject to the above observations, the C. P. is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .