considering the materials placed on both sides, came to the conclusion that the possession of the suit property is with the defendants an ordered for recovery of possession. But in the execution application, the respondents/plaintiffs has stated that the possession of suit property is not with the 2nd defendant and therefore, his legal heirs need not be impleaded in the execution proceedings which is incorrect. It is further submitted that in the suit the respondents/plaintiffs sought for the relief of recovery of possession, from the 2nd defendant and since the 2nd defendant died during pendency of the execution application, the stand taken by the respondents/plaintiffs that the 2nd defendant was not in the possession of the suit property and therefore, his legal heirs need not be impleaded in the execution petition is unsustainable. The decree passed by the trial Court was against the 2nd defendant also. Hence, the executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree. Therefore, the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant ought to have been impleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs. Without impleading the legal heirs of 2nd defendant the execution application itself is not maintainable. The executing Court ought to have given a chance to the revision petitioners to implead themselves as necessary party and allow them to give evidence on their side. However, the executing Court without 4/10
