JUDGMENT 1. - Vide this order one application under section 151 CPC read with Order 41, Rule 17 CPC for recalling the judgment and decree of this Court dated 14.4.1986 is being disposed of. 2. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of this application are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit No. 140 of 1956 for arrears of rent and eviction against two tenants Smt. Rafiqa Bibi and Syed Jainual Sahelin with the averments that the suit premises were let out in April, 1947 and now the same is required by the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 Smt. Rafiqa Bibi contested the suit while the second defendant-tenant did not appear after service. After trial, the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 23.8.1960. Appeal filed by the plaintiff-landlord was also dismissed on 13.1.1964. Second Appeal No. 356/1965 was initially dismissed in default on 18.11.1969. This appeal was later on restored but it was again dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 20.9.1972. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 9/1973 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 1.11.1985 and thus civil second appeal No. 356/1965 was decided on merits vide judgment dated 14.4.1986 and the decree of eviction and for arrears of rent was passed against the defendants-tenants. 3. In the meantime the landlord as well as the tenants expired and their legal heirs are contesting the matter. 4. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed with the averments that the applicants who are legal heirs of second tenant Shri Syed Jainual Sahelin came to know about this decree for the first time on 24.8.2002. They filed an application before the Executing Court but the same was dismissed and now the present application for recalling the judgment of this Court has been filed and the delay took place on account of the knowledge of this decree for the first time on 24.8.2002 and thereafter prosecuting the matter in the Executing Court. They filed an application before the Executing Court but the same was dismissed and now the present application for recalling the judgment of this Court has been filed and the delay took place on account of the knowledge of this decree for the first time on 24.8.2002 and thereafter prosecuting the matter in the Executing Court. On merits, it was submitted that the second defendant died in the year 1974 and his legal heirs i e. applicants were not brought on record in the second appeal and thus the judgment along with decree dated 14.4.1986 is a nullity as the same was passed against a dead person; that no substantial questions of law were framed while deciding the second appeal; that no issue on default in payment of rent was framed; that no benefit of first default in payment of rent was given to the tenants and thus the judgment dated 14.4.1986 should be recalled. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the legal heirs of landlord-decree holder submitted that during the pendency of the D.B. Civil Special Appeal the legal heirs of second defendant were brought on record and they were served by the Court. He referred the order-sheet dated 23.11.1974 wherein it is recorded that all the legal representatives of the second defendant have already been served. Legal guardian was also appointed for three minor legal heirs vide order dated 6.2.1975. It was next submitted that once legal heirs were brought on record and they were served, there was no requirement of law to issue fresh notices to bring them as legal heirs on record after restoration of the S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 356/1965. It was also submitted that the legal heirs of first tenant Smt. Rafiqa Bibi went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Civil Appeal No. 6799 of 2003 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 28.8.2003 by making an observation that it is unfortunate that a decree of eviction passed in a suit commenced in the year 1956 and culminating into a final decree in the year 1986 is still starving for its execution." It was also submitted that legal heirs of both the deceased-tenants raised objections from time to time before the Executing Court and the legal heirs of second defendant were also impleaded as party. He also referred the order of the Executing Court-Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ajmer City (West), Ajmer passed on 22.10.2003 dismissing the objections raised by legal heirs of second tenant and one order of this Court dated 3.5.2002 against the order dated 13.4.1999 passed by the Executing Court dismissing the objections of legal heirs of first tenant-Smt. Rafiqa Bibi, vide this order S.B. Civil Revision No. 672/1999 was dismissed with costs of s Rs.11,000/-. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and am of the view that neither application under section 5 of the Limitation Act nor the application for recalling the judgment of this Court dated 14.4.1986 has any merit. Articles 124 and 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 were referred. Article 124 provides a period of thirty days for a review of the judgment from the date of the decree or order and Article 137 provides a period of three years from the date, right to apply accrues for any other application for which no period of limitation is provided. As a matter of fact, the present application has been filed for a review of the judgment of this Court dated 14.4.1986 i.e. after a period of more than 17 years. The ground taken in this application that the applicants came to know about this decree for the first time on 24.8.2002 is without any basis as they were impleaded as legal heirs in D.B. Civil Special Appeal and they were served with notices in the year of 1974. This submission is also without any merit that the present applicants should have been brought on record as legal heirs of second defendant in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 356/1965 because they had already been impleaded as legal heirs in D B. Civil Special Appeal. 7. Consequently, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application for recalling the judgment of this Court dated 14.4.1986 are dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. This amount as costs has to be paid by the present applicants to the decree-holders.Appeal And Condition Application Dismissed. *******