JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.:- Decree dated 7.2.2007 passed against Surinder Kumar father of JD Anoop Kumar and husband of JD Smt. Kamla Devi is being executed against the LRs of deceased-JD, who had taken objection, interalia, that since they were not parties to the decree, they are not bound by the same. Accepting their objection petition, the Executing Court on 13.9.2012 dismissed the execution petition holding that the decree was not executable against the LRs of the deceased. 2. This order is impugned by the decree-holder claiming that being LRs of deceased-JD, they are bound by the decree and impugned order suffers from apparent illegality. 3. Counsel for the respondent-JDs, on the other hand, has urged that since the JDs were neither parties to the suit nor had set up their defence to defeat the claim of the decree-holder, they were not bound by the decree. 4. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the parties while going through the paper book. 5. Decree-holder is owner in possession of House No.43, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. JD Surender Kumar was residing in House No.2, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. i.e. towards north of house of the plaintiff. Claiming that towards north of the house of the plaintiff-decree holder, there is open courtyard, decree of permanent injunction was sought against the defendants not to open a door of their house in the open courtyard of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: “The defendant is restrained from opening any door or constructing any kitchen in the courtyard towards North side of the plaintiff ’s house No.43, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. permanently. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to record room, after due compliance.” 6. Decree was drawn. Defendant-JD Surinder Kumar had challenged the said judgment and decree dated 7.2.2007 vide Civil Appeal No.13 dated 7.3.2007. When the said appeal was pending, JD Surinder Kumar unfortunately had expired on 13.4.2008. The appeal was withdrawn and was dismissed as such. Decree has been resisted in its execution by the legal heirs of JD Surinder Kumar. 7. Decree was drawn. Defendant-JD Surinder Kumar had challenged the said judgment and decree dated 7.2.2007 vide Civil Appeal No.13 dated 7.3.2007. When the said appeal was pending, JD Surinder Kumar unfortunately had expired on 13.4.2008. The appeal was withdrawn and was dismissed as such. Decree has been resisted in its execution by the legal heirs of JD Surinder Kumar. 7. Counsel for the decree-holder, referring to Idrish Versus Jaikam and others, [2009(4) Law Herald (P&H) 2812] : (2009-4) PLR 33 (P&H) where in almost similar circumstances, it was held that where a JD dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the decree-holder can apply to the Executing Court for implementation of the same against the legal representatives of the deceased. Reference was made to Section 50 CPC which for quick reading is reproduced as below: “50. Legal representative. (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 only 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.” 8. The provision is very clear. In para 7 of the authority cited earlier, it was held as under: “A plain reading of the aforesaid provision shows that where a judgment-debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied, the decree-holder can apply to the executing court for implementation of the same against the legal heirs of the deceased and under sub-section (2), it has been provided that the legal heir shall be liable only to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to his hands by way of inheritance.” 9. As per decree dated 7.2.2007, JD Surinder Kumar was restrained from opening any door or constructing any kitchen in the courtyard towards North side of the plaintiff’s house No.43, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. permanently. As per decree dated 7.2.2007, JD Surinder Kumar was restrained from opening any door or constructing any kitchen in the courtyard towards North side of the plaintiff’s house No.43, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. permanently. It is not disputed that the objectors are son and widow of the JD and have inherited property of the JD viz. Surinder Kumar. They have no independent right in the property under execution. 10. Consequently, claim of the counsel for the respondents that the decree operates only against deceased Surinder Kumar and is not executable against them, has no merit. 11. Similar view was expressed in Ramachandra Deshpande v. Laxmana Rao Kulkarni AIR 2000 Karnataka 298. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India going even further in Kanhaiya Lal Versus Babu Ram AIR 2000 SC 3507(2) has held that permanent injunction can be issued restraining successors-in-interest of even co-owners against interference with right to use gallery, user of which was available only to one of the co-owners. 12. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is clear that the impugned order suffers from apparent illegality and there is merit in this revision petition. Sequelly, accepting the same, reversing the impugned order, the objection-petition is dismissed and the Executing Court is called upon to proceed further with the execution of the decree in accordance with law. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ----------------------