Order:- This is an application to add respondents 7 to 12 as the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent herein to the main revision petition. 2. When the revision petition was taken up for admission and disposal, on issuance of notice, Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the proposed parties insisted for an order on the impleadment petition. 3. The facts giving rise to filing of this revision petition, are, briefly, as under: The first revision petitioner herein is the decree-holder and the respondents herein are the judgment debtors in EP No.1/1999 in ATC No.1/1984 on the file of Special Officer-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. 4. The first petitioner-cultivating tenant filed ATC No.1/1984 under Sec.16 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 to declare him as a cultivating tenant; to continue in possession and to grant permanent injunction and also to declare the sale deeds in favour of the respondents 2 to 6 as nominal and void. The Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalli decreed the claim of the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.17,000/- being the value of the property sold by the first respondent to the respondents 2 to 6 within two months from the date of decree and to obtain sale deed in his favour from respondents 2 to 6 and in default, the petitioner shall loose his right to purchase the suit land. Questioning the same, respondents 2 to 6 filed ATA No.2/1992 before the II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. On dismissal of appeal on 20-4-1998, the petitioner deposited the amount on 4-5-1998 directed to be deposited, whereas filed EP on 27-4-1998. Pending EP, respondents 2 to 6 preferred revision in CRP No. 3738/1998, which was ultimately dismissed on 22-2-2006. After dismissal of the revision petition, counter has been filed contending that the petitioner- cultivating tenant failed to deposit the amount within 15 days from the date of disposal of ATA No.2/92 as directed, on which the petitioner contended that in view of the stay obtained in tenancy appeal, he could not deposit the amount. After dismissal of the revision petition, counter has been filed contending that the petitioner- cultivating tenant failed to deposit the amount within 15 days from the date of disposal of ATA No.2/92 as directed, on which the petitioner contended that in view of the stay obtained in tenancy appeal, he could not deposit the amount. The executing court by the impugned order held that though the decree was passed on 30-12-1991 and the appeal was filed on 12-2-1992, wherein stay was granted on 4-3-1992, the petitioner-cultivating tenant (decree-holder) could deposit the amount in between 1-1-1992 and 3-3-1992, but as he failed to assign any reason for not depositing the amount during that period, he is not entitled to proceed with the execution of the decree and dismissed EP. On dismissal of EP, the present revision petition has been filed, in which notice before admission was ordered on 22-2-2007. While so, on 5-4-2007 a representation was made that R-3 died and matter was adjourned for taking steps, which resulted in filing the above CMP to add respondents 7 to 12 as legal representatives under Order 22 Rule 4 r/w 151 CPC in the revision petition. 5. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of Rule 18 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Rules, 1980, all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings under A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act,1956. 5. Sri R.Radha Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by virtue of Rule 18 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Rules, 1980, all the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings under A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act,1956. He further contended that during the pendency of the EP proceedings, learned counsel for the respondents has not filed any memo intimating the death of R-3 for enabling the petitioner- cultivating tenant to take steps to bring the LRs on record, and only on notice was taken in the revision, it was stated in the cause list , R-3 died on 14-9- 2000 leaving behind him respondents 7 to 12 as LRs, which fact has not been brought to the notice of the court during the proceedings pending before this court as well as executing court, namely, CRP No.3738/1998 filed by the respondents before this court and OEP No.1/1999 before the execution court, which admittedly dismissed, without LRs brought on record as required under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC on 22-2-2006 and 19-9-2006 respectively, only on noticing the death of the third respondent from the cause list, the above application is filed, therefore EP shall not abated for not bringing the LRs on record. For the said proposition, he placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPUR V. GOKUL NARAIN AND ANOTHER, AIR 1996 SC 1819 2. VENKATACHALAM CHETTI V. RAMASWAMY, AIR 1923 Mad. 73 6. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the proposed parties contended that Order 22 has no application to execution proceedings, which is clear from Order 22 Rule 12 and Sec. 50 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the specific provision which governs the legal representatives in execution proceedings. He further contended that on dismissal of EP on 19-9-2006 no proceedings are pending before the executing court, whereas R-3 died on 14-9-2000 pending EP, therefore, his legal representatives cannot be brought on record since nothing is pending before the executing court. 7. The entire issue revolves around Section 50 and Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is necessary to notice them. 7. The entire issue revolves around Section 50 and Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is necessary to notice them. They are as under: Legal representative: 50.(1) Where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the holder of the decree may apply to the Court which passed it to execute the same against the legal representative of the deceased. (2) Where the decree is executed against such legal representative, he shall be liable to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands and has not been duly disposed of; and for the purpose of ascertaining such liability, the Court executing the decree may, of its own motion or on the application of the decree-holder, compel such legal representative to produce such accounts as it thinks fit. Rule 12 Order 20: Application of Order to proceedings. Nothing in rules 3,4 and 8 shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or order. Further it is appropriate to notice miscellaneous proceedings in Sec. 141, which reads as under: Miscellaneous proceedings. 141. The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. 8. The Supreme Court in URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPUR (supra), on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while repelling the contention that special leave petition had abated for not bringing the LRs on record when they were brought on record before the District Court on May 27, 1995 and were in knowledge and application came to be filed on May 5, 1995 pending proceedings before the Supreme Court held that counsel for the appellant did not have information about the death, on coming to know of the death after dasti service was taken out, immediately application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC has been filed within 30 days from the date of the knowledge, therefore, there is no abatement of appeal. In VENKATACHALAM CHETTI (supra), Justice Madhavan Nair speaking for the Full Bench of the Madras High Court while considering "the question whether the legal representative of the deceased decree-holder who died during the pendency of an execution petition filed by him can be substituted in his place and be allowed to continue it"; after explaining the earlier judgment of it in PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR V. VALLIAMMA ACHI, AIR 1927 Mad. 184, wherein it was held that it does not say that the legal representative should not be brought on record in the course of execution proceedings, held that legal representative of a decree- holder who died during the pendency of an execution petition can be substituted in his place in the execution petition and be allowed to continue and for coming to the above conclusion the Madras High Court drew its support from the judgment of the Privy Council in JANG BAHADUR V. BANK OF UPPER INDIA LIMITED, LUCKNOW, AIR 1928 PC 162. 9. After explaining Rule 12 Order 22 CPC and after referring to some of its earlier judgments, the Full Bench of the Madras High Court further held as under: "...The legislature says distinctly in R.12 that it does not apply to execution proceedings. What does it mean? The legislature has provided under R.3 that if a plaintiff dies, his legal representative should come on record to continue the suit within the time allowed by law i.e., 90 days from the date of the death of the deceased plaintiff, and if he does not do so, then the suit will abate. This is a penalty imposed upon the legal representative for not taking prompt steps to proceed with the suit. Rule 12 simply says that this penalty which applies to suits will not attach to execution proceedings in the case of the death of a decree-holder; or in other words, in the case of the death of a decree-holder the execution proceedings do not abate. This in my opinion, is all what the rule means and nothing more. It is not necessary to cause and inquire for what reasons the legislature made this difference between suits and execution proceedings. It may be that it wanted to treat the decree-holder who has obtained a decree in his favour with more indulgence than a plaintiff who has not obtained a decree or it may be that there were other reasons." 10. It may be that it wanted to treat the decree-holder who has obtained a decree in his favour with more indulgence than a plaintiff who has not obtained a decree or it may be that there were other reasons." 10. The Privy Council in JANG BAHADUR (supra) while considering the impleadment of legal representative by a transferee executing court, which passed the decree, and Sec. 50 CPC and specific words mentioned in said section "which passed it" held as under: "If the judgment-debtor dies before a certificate, as is required by Sec.41, is issued, the Court of transfer does not lose its jurisdiction over the execution proceedings, which does not abate by reason of the death. But before execution can proceed against the legal representative of the deceased judgment-debtor, the decree-holder must get an order for substitution from the Court which passed the decree. This is a matter of procedure and not of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction over the subject matter continues as before, but a certain procedure is prescribed for the exercise of such jurisdiction. If there is non-compliance with such procedure, ..........the defect might be waived; and the party who has acquiesced in the Court exercising it in a wrong way, cannot afterwards turn round and challenge the legality of the proceedings" In RAMANATHAN V. RAMANATHAN, AIR 1929 Mad. 275 , a Division Bench of the Madras High court after considering Order 21 Rule 22 and Sec. 50 CPC held as under: "....S. 50 only therefore lays down a general principle of which O.21, R.22 is the corollary, namely, that an execution petition must start with the application to execute against the judgment-debtor, or if he is already dead, then against the legal representatives and with a notice issued to such person to show cause. It is obviously not the law that the moment a judgment-debtor in an execution petition dies, the Court loses jurisdiction in the matter and the execution petition collapses. We are not prepared to extend to the case of a judgment- debtor the ruling in PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR V. VALLIAMMA ACHI, nor has such an argument been put forward before us. It therefore follows that the proceedings do not come to an end. We are not prepared to extend to the case of a judgment- debtor the ruling in PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR V. VALLIAMMA ACHI, nor has such an argument been put forward before us. It therefore follows that the proceedings do not come to an end. If it were to be held otherwise, then a meticulous and ridiculous enquiry into perhaps the exact minute of the party's death might be necessary, whether, for example, the death was just at the time when the property was being knocked down to the highest bidder or at the time of the confirmation of the sale. The Court has clearly jurisdiction to go on with the execution proceedings and to receive an application to bring on necessary parties if such are necessary. Does then the death of the original judgment- debtor during the pendency of the execution proceedings entail in law the issue of a fresh notice to his legal representatives? The general principle laid down by authorities, to which we shall refer, is that an initial notice under R.22, when issued, does sufficiently, for the purpose of the law, bring into Court the estate against which execution is being enforced and sufficiently retains it there, unless the result of the death of the party to whom notice was originally issued is to leave no one at all on the record to represent the estate and thus to effect the disappearance of the estate from the jurisdiction of the Court. If, therefore, there is any person left on the record who can and does sufficiently represent the estate, a fresh notice under.22 is not required by law." 12. In VENKATALAKSHMAMMA V. SESHAGIRI, AIR 1931 Mad. 303, the Madras High Court held that actual wording of Rule 12 Order 22 does not lay down that no legal representative shall be brought on record in execution proceedings but merely stated that nothing under Rules 3,4 and 8 of that Order, which provide for abatements, shall apply to execution proceedings. In VENKATALAKSHMAMMA V. SESHAGIRI, AIR 1931 Mad. 303, the Madras High Court held that actual wording of Rule 12 Order 22 does not lay down that no legal representative shall be brought on record in execution proceedings but merely stated that nothing under Rules 3,4 and 8 of that Order, which provide for abatements, shall apply to execution proceedings. Since the opinion expressed by the Judges in PALANIAPPA CHETTIAR (supra) has consistently not been accepted by the three Judges of Madras High Court i.e., Justice Wallace and Justice Madhavan Nair in RAMANATHAN V. RAMANATHAN (supra) and Justice Jackson in C.M.S.A. No.140/1928 that if the EP has been presented within 12 years of the date of decree, the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor can brought on record as representatives, Justice Anantakrishna Ayyar while concurring with the opinion of Justice Reilly in his separate judgment held that doctrine of abatement does not apply to execution proceedings and that is what is laid down in R.12, O.22. If that be so there is absolutely no ground for putting a construction on R.12 which not only is contrary to the settled practice of Courts but which also involves at the same time serious consequences prejudicial to decree-holders and to a question which is the provision of the Code which would authorize the Court to pass "order for substitution" , it was held that the Judgment of Justice Kumaraswami Sastri in MUTHIAH CHETTIAR V. GOVINDOSS KRISHNA DOSS, AIR 1921 Mad. 599, is a complete answer for the same, wherein learned Judge held thus: " Where rights are conferred by the sections of the Code and no provision is made for a particular set of facts, I think Courts ought to apply the provision of the rules which are nearest in point, with such modifications as may be necessary, and not refuse relief on the ground that the legislature has not made provision for a particular case, though within the generality of a section of the Code. The object of S. 151 is to give such power to Courts and to prevent a failure of justice." 13. The object of S. 151 is to give such power to Courts and to prevent a failure of justice." 13. Having regard to the judicial pronouncements, as referred to above, on the death of judgment-debtor execution proceedings will not abate and when dismissal of EP is subject matter of revision and during the pendency of the said revision, when notice sent to R-3 returned with endorsement that he died, the petitioner-cultivating tenant is entitled to implead the legal representatives of R-3 as parties to the revision. 14. The CRPMP is accordingly allowed.