JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner raising objections under sections 47, 151 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 101 CPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was preferred on behalf of the LRs. of one Pratap Singh in relation to an accident took place on 08.01.1997, in which Pratap Singh died on account of running over by a tractor bearing registration No.RSC-7117 on Bhadra - Hisar Road. In the claim petition, the claimants have impleaded Kewala Ramfather of the petitioners, and Sher Singh-brother of the petitioners as respondents in the capacity of owner and driver of the said tractor respectively. It is observed that both the respondents i.e. Kewala Ram and Sher Singh were represented by one Advocate. 3. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhadra (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) vide its order dated 07.03.2006, had decided the claim petition and passed the judgment and award, and held Kewala Ram liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. The respondent-claimants have filed a petition before the learned trial court for execution of the judgment and award dated 07.03.2006 and in that execution proceedings, the petitioners have filed their objections by moving an application under sections 47, 151 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 101 CPC. 4. The learned trial court, after taking into consideration the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10(A) of the CPC, has dismissed the said application against which, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the judgment and award dated 07.03.2006 was passed against the person i.e. Kewala Ram, who died on 22.01.2003, much prior to passing of the judgment and award, the same became null and void in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that since the judgment and award dated 07.03.2006 was passed against the person i.e. Kewala Ram, who died on 22.01.2003, much prior to passing of the judgment and award, the same became null and void in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Kewala Ram died on 22,.01.2003 and the claim petition against him was abated as the legal representatives of Kewala Ram have not been brought on record within the period of limitation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said abatement has not been set aside and, therefore, the execution proceedings should have been quashed. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court, without taking into consideration the settled proposition of law, has rejected the objections raised by the petitioners and, therefore, the order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the fact that Kewala Ram and his son Sher Singh, who were respondents in the claim petition, were represented by one counsel, however, neither Sher Singh nor his counsel have informed the learned Tribunal regarding the death of Kewala Ram. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that brother of the petitioners was the respondent before the learned trial court in the claim petition and he and his father were having a common advocate and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned trial court has committed any illegality in rejecting the objections vide order dated 20.04.2011. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for rival parties and perused the impugned order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned trial court. 8. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for rival parties and perused the impugned order dated 20.04.2011 passed by the learned trial court. 8. The learned trial court has taken into consideration the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10(A) of the CPC and has held that it was the duty of the respondent No.2 as well as his advocate to inform the Tribunal about the death of respondent-Kewala Ram and when they had not done so, though it was their duty as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10(A) of the CPS, no fault can be found with the award dated 07.03.2006 passed by the Tribunal. It is true that as per the provisions of Order 22 Rule 10(A) CPC, it is the duty of the pleader appearing for the party to the suit to inform the court regarding the death of the party to whom he is representing. However, in the present case, neither the advocate, who was representing non-claimant-Kewala Ram, nor Sher Singh - son of Kewala Ram have informed the Tribunal about the death of Kewala Ram. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners vide order dated 20.04.2011. 9. Consequently, the revision petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******