impleaded his legal heirs as parties in the execution petition in EP.No.177 of 2005. They remained exparte and as such, the execution court itself executed sale deed in favour of the first and second respondents herein in the name of the legal representatives of the said Muthukrishnan i.e. the fourth and fifth respondents herein. Now the first and second respondents filed petition to substitute the principal i.e. the petitioner herein in the first execution petition i.e. EP.No.188 of 2003 under Section 50 r/w 151 of CPC. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit and he was not impleaded in the execution petition while executing the sale deed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2 herein. After filing the petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC, the respondents 1 & 2 herein filed the present petition to substitute the petitioner in place of the said Muthukrishnan. Already the decree was executed and the sale deed was executed in favour of the respondents 1 & 2 herein. After the said Muthukrishnan died in the year 1997, in order to substitute his principal, in the year 2015, the respondents 1 and 2 filed the present petition. It is barred by limitation as contemplated under Article 137 of Limitation Act. Accordingly, any other application for which no period of limitation has been provided under the Limitation Act, Article 137 would apply and thus, the application to substitute the principal in the place of the deceased power holder ought to have filed
