JUDGMENT Biswanath Rath, J. - By filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein challenges the order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the Executing Court involving Execution Case No.24 of 2012 involving rejection of an application under Order 21, Rules 35, 22 and 23 read with Order 1, Rule 10 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Short background involved in the case is that the Decree holder filed the Execution proceeding in respect of Hal Khata No.731 measuring an area of Ac.0.095 decimals as per the decree passed by the Appellate Court arising out of Tile Suit No.532 of 1996, a suit seeking eviction of the Defendant No.1 from the suit schedule property and declaration of right, title and interest which suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The Execution proceeding was initiated by the plaintiff, but however involving the legal heirs of the original Defendant No.1, for the death of the Defendant No.1 in the meantime. The petitioners brought their case in the Execution proceeding that during pendency of Title Suit No.532 of 1996 without informing her, Saradhamani, the decree holder agreed to sell the suit land to her regarding pendency of a suit, the petitioner herein and her son -Biswanath accordingly took an advance of Rs. 35,000/-. Further fact brought by the petitioner and as reveals here is that during pendency of Title Appeal No.14 of 2001, Saradhamani, the decree holder sold the suit land in respect of /rd share of her to the petitioner on 30.12.2002 by executing registered sale deed wherein Biswanath, her son who took advance, is also a witness. Petitioner though demanded for return of money for involvement of the property in suit, but taking the pleas of pendency of the litigation, Saradhamani went on assuring the petitioner for delivery of possession on getting the decree involving the suit. Petitioner though demanded for return of money for involvement of the property in suit, but taking the pleas of pendency of the litigation, Saradhamani went on assuring the petitioner for delivery of possession on getting the decree involving the suit. It further reveals that in the meantime, the decree holder initiated execution proceeding registered as Execution Case No.24 of 2012 at the instance of Saradhamani Devi in which Saradhamani Devi, the decree holder having expired on 26.12.2016 and the right to execute the decree against the judgment debtors since continues, the petitioner being purchaser of the disputed property having a right to be arrayed as a decree holder filed a petition for substitution disclosing therein the facts necessitating impleading the petitioner as a party to the execution proceeding. For the reasons indicated therein, the present petitioner prayed the executing court for allowing her to be impleaded as the substituted plaintiff and to permit her to continue with the execution proceeding. This application having been considered and rejected, the petitioner brought the Civil Miscellaneous Petition herein considered. 3. For the reasons indicated therein, the present petitioner prayed the executing court for allowing her to be impleaded as the substituted plaintiff and to permit her to continue with the execution proceeding. This application having been considered and rejected, the petitioner brought the Civil Miscellaneous Petition herein considered. 3. Assailing the order of rejection of the application of the petitioner for her impleadement in the execution proceeding, Sri A.K.Parija, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner taking to the factual background involved therein, submitted that the petitioner being a lispendent purchaser of the property involved herein from Saradhamani Devi, the plaintiff in Civil Suit No.532 of 1996 having agreed to sale the disputed property and having received advance through her son and further during pendency of Title Appeal No.14 of 2001, Saradhamani Devi, the plaintiff sold the suit land in respect of /rd share to her on 30.12.2002 by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed wherein her son is a witness and the request of the petitioner for returning of money on coming to know about the pendency of the suit and filing of appeal thereafter and the execution proceeding having been initiated concerning the judgment and decree involving the disputed property on the death of the decree holder Saradhamani Devi, the petitioner being lispendent purchaser of the property became a necessary party, Sri A.K.Parija, learned senior counsel also urged before this Court that unless the petitioner is added as a party to the execution proceeding in the fact of demise of the plaintiff, the decree holder in the meantime and for the involvement of the petitioner in the purchase of the disputed property involved herein, the petitioner has not only a right to continue with the execution proceeding but any decision in absence of them the situation will yield with multiplicity of litigation. Referring to a judgment of this Court involving Uchhab Patra v. Brundan Mallik, (1969) 35 CLT 86 (equivalent to AIR 1969 Orissa 142), learned senior counsel contended that there has been illegal consideration of the application of the petitioner resulting the illegal impugned order. Sri Parija, learned senior counsel thus contended that unless this Court interferes in the impugned order, the situation will lead to a bad proceeding and also will create a confusing situation involving the disputed property, for which a decree is already obtained. 4. Sri Parija, learned senior counsel thus contended that unless this Court interferes in the impugned order, the situation will lead to a bad proceeding and also will create a confusing situation involving the disputed property, for which a decree is already obtained. 4. This Court even though finds there is appearance of a set of counsel for the contesting opposite parties and their participation in all the previous occasions except in the proceeding dated 2.4.2018, none appears during the course of hearing. 5. Considering the contention of Sri Parija, learned senior counsel and eliminating the admitted fact that there remains no doubt that the petitioner is the lispendent purchaser involving the disputed property receiving of advance money of which not only taken place during pendency of the suit, but there has been even entering into a registered sale deed by the decree holder in favour of the present petitioner during pendency of the title appeal, this Court also finds, admittedly there is death of the sole decree holder and nobody is coming forward to substitute the decree holder except the lispendent purchaser, whose right is definitely in contest. This Court also observes that for no benefit to the legal heirs of the decree holder in the execution of the judgment and decree, it is obvious, there is possibility of no contest in the proceeding by the legal heirs of the sole decree holder. It is at this stage, this Court finds in the interest of justice and for the facts involved herein that the petitioner is the lispendent purchaser of the disputed property and a right to continue with the dispute involving execution proceeding, non-impletion of the petitioner shall land in multiplicity of litigation involving the same property vis--vis the present petitioner and the contesting opposite parties, the judgment debtors. It is at this stage, this Court taking into account the decision cited by Sri Parija, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, finds considering a case of similar nature and also involving such a situation in an execution proceeding, this Court taking into account several other decisions in the reported decision in paragraph-3 held as follows: "3. It is at this stage, this Court taking into account the decision cited by Sri Parija, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, finds considering a case of similar nature and also involving such a situation in an execution proceeding, this Court taking into account several other decisions in the reported decision in paragraph-3 held as follows: "3. Order 22, Rule 10 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code lays down that in other cases of an assignment, creation or devolution of any interest during the pendency of a suit, the suit may, by leave of the Court, be continued by or against the person to or upon whom such interest has come or devolved. This rule thus enables the transferee with the leave of the Court to continue the suit, The appellant could have made an application in the suit itself to be impleaded as a plaintiff in place of Brundaban Padhan. In fact, he did not do so. The question is whether he is precluded from continuing the execution after the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff despite the transfer during the pendency of the suit. Though the aforesaid rule enables the transferee to continue the suit, it is no bar to the transferor continuing the suit for the benefit of his successor. The position of law was settled in AIR 1915 Cal 103, Rai Charan Mandai v. Biswanath Mandai, Their Lordships observed that the plaintiff who has instituted litigation may prosecute it to its conclusion notwithstanding a devolution of his interest in the property. The litigation will continue in his name for the benefit of his successor. Order 22, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code is an alternative procedure which guards against the danger that the original plaintiff being no longer interested in the proceedings may not vigorously prosecute them or may even collude with the adversary. The same view was taken in AIR 1936 Pat 420, Joti Lai Sah v. Sheo-dhayan Prashad Sah. On the aforesaid analysis the execution by the appellant Is maintainable." This Court finds the decision has direct application to the case at hand. 6. The same view was taken in AIR 1936 Pat 420, Joti Lai Sah v. Sheo-dhayan Prashad Sah. On the aforesaid analysis the execution by the appellant Is maintainable." This Court finds the decision has direct application to the case at hand. 6. Perused the observations and the findings involving the impugned order, having remaining contrary to the observations of this Court hereinabove as well as the principle of law decided in the decision indicated supra, this Court finds the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. In the circumstance, while setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-1, this Court allows the application at the instance of the petitioner for her impleadement in executing court, directs the petitioner to file consolidated cause title in the executing court within ten days hence. The executing court is also directed to conclude the execution proceeding but, however treating the petitioner as a decree holder, being substituted in place of the actual decree holder. 8. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition succeeds but, however, there is no order as to cost.