JUDGMENT : 1. By this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.9.98 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) in execution proceedings. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the order of learned Judge. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit was filed by Maheshwari Samaj through its Secretary Ganga Bishan Gattani for eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises. This suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff Maheshwari Samaj on 24.11.90. First appeal was dismissed on 28.4.94 and the second appeal was dismissed on 10.8.94. Then the SLP was filed before the Supreme Court which was dismissed on 25.9.95. 4. The admitted position is that Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani the then Secretary of Maheshwari Samaj expired on 12.5.92 during the pendency of the first appeal. An execution application was filed by decree holder Maheshwari Samaj stating the status of decree holder as follows:- (Vernacular matter omitted.) 5. No leave of the court was obtained as per Order 22 Rule 10 CPC. Notice of the execution case were issued and reply was filed After hearing both the parties the lower court rejected the application by impugned order dated 4.9.98. 6. On behalf of the judgment debtor petitioner an application was submitted on 2.11.98 taking plea that the Maheshwari Samaj has filed so many suits for eviction of property and one such suit is pending before the Civil Judge (JD) No. 5, Jodhpur and in this case an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC was filed after death of Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani to substitute Shri Shiv Raj Mohta in place of Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani. It has been further submitted in the application that when such an application was filed in another suit, an application under the said provision should have also been filed in the present execution petition pending before the executing court. 7. Both the parties agree that the suit was filed on behalf of Maheshwari Samaj. Both of them agree that Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani expired on 12.5.92. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an objection under Section 47 CPC was raised before the executing court that the decree was nullity as no permission was taken from the court to substitute Shiv Raj Mohta who was admittedly present Mantri. But this objection was rejected. Both of them agree that Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani expired on 12.5.92. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that an objection under Section 47 CPC was raised before the executing court that the decree was nullity as no permission was taken from the court to substitute Shiv Raj Mohta who was admittedly present Mantri. But this objection was rejected. In support of his argument that the decree was a nullity, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on AIR 1989 NOC 16 (Madhya Pradesh), Om Parkash v. Jagannathibai and another, in which decree was passed 14 month after the death of plaintiff during which period legal representatives were not brought on record and it was held that such a decree was void. This citation does not help the petitioner because here in this case it is the Maheshwari Samaj which is the decree holder. Its Secretary Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani, who had filed the suit on behalf of Maheshwari Samaj, admittedly died during the pendency of first appeal and the decree which has been upheld upto the Supreme Court cannot be held to be a nullity on this ground that Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani who was Secretary had died. The objection about the death of Ganga Bishan Gattani was taken earlier but the same was rejected on 25.1.96 as the suit was filed in the representative capacity by Ganga Bishan Gattani and not in his personal capacity and this order was maintained upto the High court. 8. According to the learned counsel Order 22 Rules 3 and 4 of CPC will not apply instead Order 22 Rule 10 CPC should apply because after death of Shri Ganga Bishan Gattani the interest devolved upon the other Mantri named Shiv Raj son of Shri Fateh Raj Mohta who has been substituted without permission of the court. He has cited AIR 1975 SC 2159 , Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass v. Som Dass (Deceased) through his chela Shiama Dass , in which it has been held that Order 22 Rule 10 CPC is based on the principle that "trial of a suit cannot be brought to an end merely because the interest of a party in the subject matter of the suit has devolved upon another during the pendency of the suit but that suit may be continued against the person acquiring the interest with the leave of the court. When a suit is brought by or against a person in a representative capacity and there is a devolution of the interest of the representative, the rule that has to be applied is Order 22 Rule 10 and not Rule 3 or 4, whether the devolution takes place as a consequence of death or for any other reason. Order 22 Rule 10 is not confined to devolution of interest of a party by death; it also applies if the head of the mutt or manager of the temple resigns his office or is removed from office. In such a case the successor to the head of the mutt or to the manager of the temple may be substituted as a party under this rule. Accordingly, the devolution of interest in the subject matter of the suit takes place when the successor is elected as Mahant after the death of the previous Mahant." 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree was a nullity cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the decree could not be upset on purely technical ground as observed in AIR 1974 P&H 277 , Bant Ram and others v. Banta Singh and others. In N.P. Thirugnanam (D) by Lrs. v. Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao & others, 1995 DNJ (SC) 326 , it has been observed that there will no abatement of the case if the plaintiff dies after the arguments in appeal are over and the case is posted for judgment. The judgment will have the same force as if the judgment has been pronounced while the plaintiff was alive. In AIR 1996 SC 1211 , Singhai Lal Chand Jain (dead) v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, the Supreme Court held that the decree was not a nullity for mere want of permission under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. So the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree was a nullity is not maintainable. On the same ground no leave of the court will be necessary under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in this case. 10. So far as execution is concerned, the leave of the court is not required in this case as per provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC because in the representative suit interest has not devolved on any individual person. 10. So far as execution is concerned, the leave of the court is not required in this case as per provisions of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC because in the representative suit interest has not devolved on any individual person. In the citation Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass (supra) the suit was not in a representative capacity. This difference in facts distinguishes the citation. It is Maheshwari Samaj which has filed execution. Shri Shiv Raj Mohta is looking after the work of Maheshwari Samaj as its Secretary after the death of Ganga Bishan Gattani. Therefore, in my view no leave of the court under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was necessary to proceed with the execution in this case. 11. I do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge and this Court cannot interfere in its powers under Section 115 CPC.The result is that the revision petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs.Revision dismissed.