ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.05.2023 passed on I.A. No. 2 in Execution Case No. 1335/2021 by the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, the objector therein has preferred this Civil Revision petition. 2. The Decree Holder filed O.S. No. 4659/2014 on 23.06.2014 against the Judgment Debtor for the relief of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule properties. The cause-title of the original suit reads as under: IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE O.S. NO. 4659/2014 BETWEEN: SHRI H.V. NAGARAJ S/o Shri Veeranna, Aged about 45 years, R/at No. 3678, 6th Cross, Subramanya Nagar, 2nd Stage, Bangalore - PLAINTIFF SHRI H. VASUDEV Shri S/o Hombanna, Aged about 31 years, R/at. Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore. Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder SHRI JINENDRA PRASAD S/o Shri Thrilokchand, Aged about 56 years, R/at. No. 252, Kothanur Post, Hennur Main Road, Bangalore-560077 - DEFENDANT 3. The pleadings in the original suit reveal that defendant had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his Power of Attorney Holder for a consideration and that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule properties with the defendant as well as his General Power of Attorney Holder and had paid the entire sale consideration in favour of the General Power of Attorney Holder. However, while filing O.S. No. 4659/2014, the plaintiff has made the defendant represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder alone a party to the suit and he has not made his General Power of Attorney Holder a party to the suit separately as another defendant. Hence, irrespective of the pleadings made in the body of the plaint, the suit has to be considered as one filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. 4. After filing of the suit, the General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the defendant has appeared before the Court and conducted the case on behalf of the defendant and also has compromised the suit on behalf of the defendant with the plaintiff and the suit has been decreed as per the terms of the compromise, which requires the defendant to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff. What is to be noted here is, that the suit was contested by the General Power of Attorney Holder on behalf of the defendant alone and not in his personal capacity and he as an agent of the defendant has entered into a compromise on behalf of the defendant. The fact of General Power of Attorney having been given to a General Power of Attorney Holder by the defendant for a consideration and making it irrevocable and continuing even after the death of defendant has not been pleaded and established. 5. The suit was decreed on 22.11.2014. 6. It is now brought to the notice of this Court by both the parties concerned that the defendant had died long back on 07.03.2011, much prior to filing of the suit which was on 23.06.2014. 7. As the proceedings in the suit has to be considered as a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant and not a case between the plaintiff and the General Power of Attorney Holder of the defendant, the decree passed has to be considered as a decree passed against the defendant. As mentioned above, the suit was instituted against a dead person and the decree has been passed against a dead person and under the circumstances, the said decree has to be considered a nullity. 8. A decree which is considered as a nullity, cannot be executed. The plaintiff/Decree Holder/respondent herein filed Execution Case No. 1335/2021 to have the decree executed. In the said proceedings, the petitioner herein impleaded himself as an Objector and apart from taking up a contention that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties, also filed an application under Section 151 of CPC to dismiss the execution case on the ground that the decree was obtained against the dead person. The trial Court has rejected the said application, against which, the present Civil Revision petition has been filed. 9. Admittedly, as mentioned above, the decree was obtained against a dead person and it becomes a nullity, it cannot be enforced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 567 , in paragraph Nos. 3 and 9, held as under: “3. 9. Admittedly, as mentioned above, the decree was obtained against a dead person and it becomes a nullity, it cannot be enforced. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Transport Agency vs. Awadhesh Kumar and Another, (1998) 5 SCC 567 , in paragraph Nos. 3 and 9, held as under: “3. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the respondents against three persons namely (1) Ashok Transport Agency (2) A.C. Basu, Proprietor of Ashok Transport Agency and (3) Birnath Singh, Manager of Ashok Transport Agency. The said suit was filed on 28-9-1992. Prior to the filing of the suit, A.C. Basu, Proprietor of Ashok Transport Agency had died on 6-8-1992. In the said suit, nobody appeared on behalf of the defendants and an ex-parte decree was passed on 28-9-1993. The respondents thereafter moved for execution of the said decree. Before the executing court, it was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the decree was a nullity and it could not be executed for the reason that the Proprietor of Ashok Transport Agency had already died on the date of the institution of the suit and that the decree was passed against a dead person. The Munsif Sadar, Sitamarhi, by order dated 13-7-1994 upheld the said objection raised by the appellants and dismissed the execution petition on the view that the decree having been passed against a dead person was a nullity and it could not be executed. The revision filed by the respondents against the said order of the executing court has been allowed by the Patna High Court by the impugned judgment dated 23-7-1996. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that in view of Order XXX Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, even though the Proprietor of the firm Ashok Transport Agency had died before the institution of the suit, the decree passed against him cannot be held to be a nullity and, therefore, it a could be executed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant, which is now a partnership firm has filed this appeal. 9. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. In our opinion, the executing court has rightly taken the view that the suit having been filed against the dead person, the decree was a nullity and could not be executed. 9. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court. In our opinion, the executing court has rightly taken the view that the suit having been filed against the dead person, the decree was a nullity and could not be executed. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the executing court is restored. No order as to costs.” 10. Thus, the trial Court should not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner herein, it should have dismissed the execution case as the decree was admittedly, obtained against a dead person and same is not executable. No doubt, dismissal of the execution case does not mean that respondent herein cannot have any right against the petitioner or any other third person or that his right to the properties concerned is lost. If he has any right over the property concerned and any person is interfering in respect of the same, he is always at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against the said persons in accordance with law, subject to law of limitation and other legal prohibitions, if any. However, he is not entitled to get the decree passed in O.S. No. 4659/2014 executed. 11. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petition is ALLOWED. I.A. No. 2 filed by the petitioner in execution Case No. 1335/2021 before the XI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City is hereby allowed and execution Case No. 1335/2021 stands dismissed.