JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA

FACULTY OF LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE – I ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC: - EXECUTION OF DECREES AGAINST LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Submitted to-

Adv. Rajesh Sharda Sir

Submitted by-

Tejaswi Bhardwaj
Roll No.- 65
B.A. LL. B (Regular)
7th Semester
 AKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for his showers of blessings
throughout my research work to complete the research successfully. I would like to express my
deep and sincere gratitude to Rajesh Sharda Sir for giving me the opportunity to do project work
and providing invaluable guidance throughout this research.

His dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired me. He has taught me the
methodology to carry out the research and to present the research works as clearly. It was a great
privilege and honours to work and study under his guidance. I am extremely grateful for what he
has offered me. I would also like to thank him for his friendship, empathy, and great sense of
humour. I am extending my heartfelt thanks to his wife, family for their acceptance and patience
during the discussion I had with him on research work and thesis preparation.

I am extremely grateful to my parents for their love, prayers, caring and sacrifices for educating
and preparing me for my future. Finally, my thanks go to all the people who have supported me
to complete the project work directly or indirectly.

Tejaswi Bhardwaj
 Table of Contents
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Research Methodology .................................................................................................................... 5

3. The Procedure Code ........................................................................................................................ 6

4. Section 50 .......................................................................................................................................... 7

• Scope.............................................................................................................................................. 7
• Doctrine of Representation ......................................................................................................... 8
• Legal representative ..................................................................................................................... 9
5. Section 52 ........................................................................................................................................ 10

• Scope............................................................................................................................................ 10
• Decree against executor or administrator of estate of deceased ............................................ 13
6. Distinction between Section 50 and 52 ......................................................................................... 13

7. Recent Judgments .......................................................................................................................... 14

8. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 15

9. Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 17
 1. Introduction

‘Legal Representative’ means a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person,
and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and, where a party
sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death
of the party so suing or sued.1 Section 2 (11) of the Code defines the expression 'legal
representative' as a person who in law represents the estate of deceased person, and includes any
person who intermeddles with the estate of deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so
suing or sued.

Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code permits the decree-holder to get executed the decree
against the legal representatives of the Judgment-debtor who dies after the decree is passed.
Section 52 provides that when a decree is against the legal representatives of a dead person and
is one for recovery of money out of the properties of the deceased, it may be executed by
attachment and sale of any such property. It enables a decree-holder to execute his decree against
the legal representatives of the Judgment-debtor, the liability, of course, in execution being
confined to the extent of the deceased's property in the hands of the legal representative.

The only difference is that there the decree is against the party and legal representative comes
into picture during execution proceedings, while in the present section the decree is passed
against the legal representative of the debtor. Upon the death of party, during the continuation of
the suit, it is mandatory that the legal representatives of that deceased Judgment- debtor shall be
brought on.2

The draft of this project proceeds with referring the provisions related to execution of decree
against legal representative in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Then, Sections 50 and 52 are dealt
in detail by referring to doctrine of representation and the meaning of legal representative.

1
Dinamoni Chaudhurani v. Elahadut Khan, (1904) 8 Cal WN 843.
2
D. Krishna Sachi v. Y. Vijay Lakshmamma, AIR 1988 AP 60.
Further, an attempt has been made to create a distinction between these provisions. And then
finally recent judgments by Supreme Court and various High Courts has been referred.

2. Research Methodology
• Statement of Problem

What is the distinction between Section 50 and 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure?

• Aims and Objective

The aims and objective of this project are:

❖ To understand the provisions of Section 50 and 52 of the Procedure Code.

❖ To understand the concepts of ‘doctrine of representation’ and ‘legal representative’.
❖ To identify the difference between the scope of their application.

• Hypothesis

The scope of application of Section 50 and 52 of the Civil Procedure is different.

• Methodology

The doctrinal method of research has been followed in the project, using secondary sources such
as case laws and commentaries by eminent authors. This project work has made use of books as
well as internet resources, online database etc.

• Review of literature

• SIR DINSHAW FARDUNJI MULLA, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (Vol. I, 18 ed.
2016)

While dealing with the difference between Sections 50 and 52, the author emphasized that
Section 50 provides for a case where a decree has been passed against a party and the party dies
before the decree is fully satisfied and the decree is sought to be executed against the legal
representative. Whereas Section 52 provides for a case where a decree is passed against the legal
representative of a deceased person. In the latter case, the legal representative is the judgment-
debtor
 • M. Jagannadha Rao J., in V. Uthirapathi v. Ashrab Ali3

Justice Rao while dealing with the application of Section 52 of the Code said, if after the filing
of an execution petition in time, the decree holder dies and his legal representatives do not come
on record or the judgment debtor dies and his legal representatives are not brought on record,
then there is no abatement of the execution petition. If there is no abatement, the position in the
eye of law is that the execution petition remains pending on the file of the execution Court.

• N R Ayyangar J., in Dayaram v. Shyam Sundari4

Justice Ayyangar while dealing with Section 52 recognized the principle of representation of the
estate by some heirs where the Defendant dies during the pendency of a suit to enforce a claim
against him, and not all the heirs are brought on the record.

3. The Civil Procedure Code

S. 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.

S. 52. Enforcement of decree against legal representative.

(1) Where a decree is passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person,
and the decree is for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed
by the attachment and sale of any such property.

3
AIR 1998 SC 1168.
4
AIR 1965 SC 1049.
(2) Where no such property remains in the possession of the judgment debtor and he fails to
satisfy the Court that he has duly applied such property of the deceased as is proved to have
come into his possession, the decree may be executed against the judgment-debtor to the extent
of the property in respect of which he has failed so to satisfy the Court in the same manner as if
the decree had been against him personally.

4. Section 50
• Scope

Section 50 permits the decree-holder to get executed the decree against the legal representatives
of the Judgment-debtor who dies after the decree is passed. The application has to be moved
before the executing Court. The section does not specifically mention about the legal
representatives of deceased decree-holder but where the decree-holder dies after passing of the
decree his legal representatives may be treated holder of decree or the transferees.5

An interesting question is whether a decree holder can proceed with the execution case in spite
of the death of the Judgment-debtor, without impleading the legal representatives of the deceased
Judgment debtor. It is one of the cardinal principles of law that justice must be done after hearing
both sides to the dispute. The necessary corollary from this is that there can be no Order or
decree against a dead man, for a dead man cannot be heard. The necessary conclusion, is that
while, on the one hand, the proceedings will not abate, on the other hand, it will not be possible
for the Court to do anything in the way of execution until and unless the legal representatives
have been brought on the record.6 Therefore the words "may apply" used in the section bear
the sense of "shall apply".7 It is also obligatory that the notices be issued to the alleged legal
representatives under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code before proceeding further in the execution
of decree.

The words "fully satisfied" in Section 50 were put in substitution of the words "fully executed"
for the purpose of negating a decision of the Allahabad High Court, that when once a property
was attached the decree was fully executed. On that old view there was a special reason for

5
Ram Murti Devi v. Ralla Ram Tulsi Ram, AIR 1987 HP 1 at 4.
6
Rajlakshmi Dassi v. Bonomali Sen, AIR 1955 Cal 573.
7
Mubarak v. Sushil, AIR 1957 Raj 154.
holding that where the Judgment-debtor died after the attachment it was not necessary to bring
his heirs on the record of the execution case. That special reason has been abolished by the
amendment of the section.8

A decree which is passed against a person who has died either before the institution of suit or
during the pendency of the suit without substitution of his legal heirs subject to Rule 6, Order
XXII, is a nullity against him.9 Though decree passed against a dead person is nullity a decree
passed in favour of dead person is not nullity.10 Where the Defendant dies after the hearing of
suit but before delivery of Judgment, the decree, in view of Order XXII, Rule 6 is not null and is
a valid decree.

Though generally a decree for prohibitory injunction restrains a person from doing something
and in that sense, it could be said to be personal, it cannot always be considered to operate merely
against a person. In a case where the decree restrains a judgment-debtor from doing something
in his own land to the detriment of the decree-holder or in derogation of a right claimed by the
Judgment-debtor to enjoy his own property as an owner, the decree could not be understood as
merely personal and not binding on the representative or assignee of the Judgment-debtor in
relation to the property in respect of which it is obtained.11

• Doctrine of Representation.

There are two authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Dayaram v. Shym
Sundari12 and Mohd. Sulaiman v. Mohd. Ismail13 which make the enunciation that a decree in
a suit in which one of the persons dies and in which not all his legal representatives are brought
on the record, or in which wrong legal representative is brought on the record, is binding upon
the person who is not brought on the record, if the wrong legal representative was brought on the
record pursuant to a bona fide enquiry and there was no fraud or collusion and the estate was
adequately represented. This Court has therefore recognized the principle of representation of
the estate by some heirs where the Defendant dies during the pendency of a suit to enforce a

8
Debi v. Raj Krishna Mondal, 32 Cal WN 418 (H).
9
Elissa v. A. Dass, AIR 1992 Mad 159.
10
Hamanshu v. Mahindra, AIR 1954 Cal 204.
11
Chothy Theyyathan v. John Thomas, AIR 1997 Ker 249.
12
Dayaram v. Shym Sundari, 1965 AIR 1049.
13
Mohd. Sulaiman v. Mohd. Ismail, 1966 AIR 792.
claim against him, and not all the heirs are brought on the record. If after bona fide enquiry,
some but not all the heirs of a deceased Defendant are brought on the record represent the entire
estate of the deceased, and the decision of the Court in the absence of fraud or collusion binds
those who are not brought on the record as well as those who are impleaded co nominee. 14

• Legal representative.

Section 50(2) of the Civil Procedure Code enables a decree-holder to execute his decree against
the legal representatives of the Judgment-debtor, the liability, of course, in execution being
confined to the extent of the deceased's property in the hands of the legal representative. That
precisely is also the position Under Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act. 15 It is thus well
settled that legal representatives of Judgment-debtor are liable for the debts of the predecessor to
the extent of the estate acquired by the legal representatives from their predecessors.16

Section 2 (11) of the Code defines the expression 'legal representative' as a person who in law
represents the estate of deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the
estate of deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. No execution can proceed
against deceased Judgment-debtor unless his legal representatives are brought on record.17 As
mentioned earlier where an execution proceeding is brought against legal representatives of
deceased Judgment-debtor, notices must be issued under Order XXI, Rule 22 of the Code.
However, in view of Rule 22A of the said Order, if the Judgment-debtor dies after the
proclamation of sale in execution, sale would bind the legal representatives even if they were not
brought on record. The liability of legal representatives extends only to the extent of property or
assets acquired by him on the death of Judgment-debtor. A nominee of a Judgment-debtor-policy
holder is his legal representative and creditor decree-holder can realize his dues from money
reached into the hands of such nominee.18 Even a stranger who does not claim title but is in

14
N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N.C. Mohammad Ismail, AIR 1966 SC 792; Manjappa Moolya v. Rama Bhandary, AIR
1968 Kant 202.
15
Dayanandan v. Venugopal Naidu, AIR 1964 Mad 78.
16
Madhukar Sagun Karpe v. Institute of public assistance, 1998 (3) Bom CR 101.
17
Raj Laxmi v. Banmali, AIR 1955 Cal 573.
18
Raja Ram v. Mata Prasad, AIR 1972 All 167.
possession of deceased Judgment-debtor's property can be proceeded against as legal
representative under the section in execution proceedings.19

5. Section 52
It is well settled that legal representative of judgment-debtors are liable for the debts of the
predecessor to the extent of estate acquired by the legal representative from their predecessors.20

Section 52(1) empowers a creditor to execute his decree against the property of deceased in the
hands of legal representative so long as it remains in his hand. For application of this clause the
decree should have passed against the party as the legal representative of the deceased person,
and it should be for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased. Section 52(2)
empowers a creditor to execute his decree against the legal representative personally if he fails
to accounts for the properties received by him from deceased person.

Where a decree is passed against a party as the “legal representative” of a deceased person and
decree is for payment of money out of the property of deceased person, it may be executed by
attachment and sell of any such property.

‘Legal Representative’ means a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person,
and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and, where a party
sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death
of the party so suing or sued.21

The expression ‘property’ includes the income of immovable property though it cannot be both
attached and sold.22

• Scope

This section is, to some extent, similar to Section 50. The only difference is that there the decree
is against the party and legal representative comes into picture during execution proceedings,
while in the present section the decree is passed against the legal representative of the debtor.

19
Baliram v. Mukunda, AIR 1951 Nag 145.
20
Madhukar Sagun Karpe v. Institute of Public Assistance, AIR 1998 Bom 201.
21
Dinamoni Chaudhurani v. Elahadut Khan, (1904) 8 Cal WN 843.
22
Phool Kunwar v. Rikhi Ram, AIR 1935 All 261.
Upon the death of party, during the continuation of the suit, it is mandatory that the legal
representatives of that deceased Judgment- debtor shall be brought on.23 Non-impleadment is
not fatal to the proceedings as long as there is a representation. The doctrine of representation
depends upon the representation of the estate in effect and on the honest belief that it is
represented, there being no fraud or collusion. It has as much application to those cases as to a
case where one of the parties to the suit dies and the estate is adequately represented by the others
and a decree is made without the legal representative of the deceased having been brought on the
record. The application of that doctrine is not limited to a case where the suit is instituted against
a wrong person or to a case where a wrong legal representative is brought on record, or where
only a few of the legal representatives are impleaded. Where there is no averment that any
enquiry was made as to who are the legal representatives of deceased under these circumstances
the decree in the suit will not bind the obstructer.24 A person whom the Plaintiff alleges to be the
legal representative of the deceased defendant and whose name the Court enters on the record in
the place of such defendant, sufficiently represents the estate of the deceased for the purposes of
the suit and in the absence of any fraud or collusion the decree passed in such suit will bind such
estate. It will of course be open to any other person who is or claims to be the legal representative
or one of the legal representatives of the deceased defendant to apply to have his name also
entered on the record as a legal representative in the place of the deceased defendant. 25 If there
were any legal representatives of the deceased Judgment-debtor other than those already on
record the Order directing the sale in execution or confirming the sale cannot be held to be illegal
or vitiated nor could the auction purchaser doubt or question the correctness of such Orders in
execution. It is an ordinary rule of construction that the singular includes the plural and that
therefore, the word "Judgment-debtor" occurring in Section 52(2) must be read as meaning
"Judgment debtors". When a decree has been passed against two or more Judgment-debtors, it is
open to the decree-holder to proceed against whichever Judgment-debtor he chooses. The choice
is his and no Judgment-debtor can say that before he is proceeded against, the decree-holder must

23
D. Krishna Sachi v. Y. Vijay Lakshmamma, AIR 1988 AP 60.
24
Upperi Janki v. Balakrishna Nambiar, AIR 1981 Ker 52.
25
exhaust his remedies against someone else. It does not appear that there is any intention in Section
52 to alter this principle in its application to the legal representatives of a deceased debtor.26

Section 52(1), Civil Procedure Code, provides that when a decree is against the legal
representatives of a dead person and is one for recovery of money out of the properties of the
deceased, it may be executed by attachment and sale of any such property. Then comes section
53 which lays down that "for purposes of section 50 and section 52 property in the hands of a
son or other descendants which is liable under Hindu law for payment of the debt of a deceased
ancestor in respect of which a decree has been passed, shall be deemed to be property of the
deceased which has come to the hands of the son or other descendant as his legal representative.
The decree-holder would not be entitled to proceed personally against any of the legal
representatives until it has been shown that no one of them is in possession of any other property
of the deceased. The decree-holder would have first of all to ascertain which of the legal
representatives of the deceased debtor retains the property of the deceased intact and then proceed
against him. That would lead to this result; the person who has disposed of all the properties of
the deceased would be the last individual who can be proceeded against.

Ordinarily the Court does not regard a decree binding upon a person who was not impleaded co-
nomine in the action. But to that rule there are certain recognised exceptions. Where by the
personal law governing the absent heir, the heir impleaded represents his interest in the estate
of the deceased, there is yet another exception which is evolved in the larger interest of
administration of justice. If there be a debt justly due and no prejudice is shown to the absent
heir, the decree in an action where the Plaintiff has after bona fide enquiry impleaded all the
heirs known to him will ordinarily be held binding upon all persons interested in the estate.27

If the decree is for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased-debtor, this section
permits the decree to be executed against the property of the deceased so long as it is in the hands
of the legal representatives. Where the property of the deceased is not in the hands of Judgment-
debtor and he fails to satisfy the Court that he has applied such property in making payment of
the debt, the decree may be executed against the Judgment-debtor to the extent of the property

26
Chekka Suryanarayana v. Yenumulla Rajyalakshmi Devi Amma, AIR 1950 Mad 407.
27
Lalji Kunwarji v. Heirs of Dungreshi, AIR 1974 Guj 42; Satkari Banerjee v. Sushil Kumar Mukherjee, AIR 1951 Cal 577.
in respect of which he has failed to satisfy the Court in the same manner as if the decree had been
passed against him personally. For the definition of legal representative see Section 2 (11) of the
Code.

Section 52 applies to a Company which has taken the assets and liabilities of a Judgment debtor.
Where the Plaintiff, after bona fide enquiry brings some of the legal representatives on record
and there is no fraud or collusion, the estate of deceased can be said to have been duly represented
by such heirs alone. Similarly, when the decree itself is passed for recovery of money against the
estate of principal-debtor in the hands of Judgment-debtors, the need to bring the legal
representatives of one of the Judgment-debtors gets obviated for the reason that other Judgment-
debtors are already representing the estate of principal debtor.28

• Decree against executor or administrator of estate of deceased

A decree passed against a wrong person like executor or administrator of estate of deceased
person, is valid against the estate of deceased if such persons are in possession of property of
deceased. And decree binds all legal representatives of the deceased even if they could not be
impleaded in suit. But where the executor has not intermeddled with the estate of the deceased
or has not administered, the execution cannot proceed unless the legal representatives are brought
on record.

6. Distinction between Section 50 and 52

Section 50 provides for a case where a decree has been passed against a party and the party
dies before the decree is fully satisfied and the decree is sought to be executed against the legal
representative. While Section 52 provides for a case where a decree is passed against the legal
representative of a deceased person. In the latter case, the legal representative is the judgment-
debtor.29

Sections 50 and 52 apply in two different situations. Section 52 applies where the defendant dies
during the pendency of the suit and his legal representatives are brought on record and decree is
passed against them. Under Section 50 the decree is passed against the original debtor and the

28
4 D. Krishna Sachi, v. Y. Vijay Lakshmanamma, AIR 1988 AP 60.
29
Birdichand v. Badasahed, AIR 1927 Bom 52.
decree is sought to be executed against his legal representatives. Therefore, under Section 50 the
burden is on the decree-holder to show that the property in question has come into hands of the
legal heirs. But, under Section 52 the burden is on the legal representative to show that they have
not received the property from the deceased.

7. Recent Judgments
• B.S. Ashok S/o Late B. Subbarama Setty v. The Investment Trust of India Ltd. (A Public
Limited Company) represented by its Executive Director30
The Plaintiff is only a legal representative and as such the claim against the legal
representative would be only to the extent of property of the deceased which has not been
duly disposed of against which decree can be executed.
• Smt. Shivamma v. Arogyamma31
It is seen that sub-clause 1 of Section 52 of CPC makes it clear that where a decree is
passed against a party as the legal representative of a deceased person, and the decree is
for the payment of money out of the property of the deceased, it may be executed by the
attachment and sale of any such property.
• Someswara Swamy Vari Devasthanam v. Dasam Suryanarayana and Ors.32
A decree passed against the personal property of the legal representatives in violation of
Section 52 C.P.C. is a nullity and therefore in executable.
• Co-op. Society v. Kartiyayani Unni33
Though Sections 50 and 52 of the CPC make provision for the course of action to be
adopted if the judgment debtor dies, except Section 146, there is no other specific
provision dealing with the subject.
Even after impleading the legal representatives of the decree holder, the executability or
otherwise of the decree can be adjudicated by the executing court. The accident that the
decree holder died before deciding that issue already raised by the judgment debtors
cannot be a fetter to the impleadment of the legal representatives of the decree holder.

30
2010 (2) KCCR 822.
31
2011(3) KCCR 2458
32
AIR 2004 AP 223.
33
2011(2) KLJ 209.
 • Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh And Anr34
The Supreme Court held that the Decree holders should get the relief expeditiously in the
event of suit proceedings as the Judgment holders make it impossible for the decree
holders to get their relief even after the settlement decided by the court. The High Court
and Executing court perused through the report again making it impossible to get the relief
the appellant party was supposed to. Hence, the appeal was allowed and the executing
court was directed to perform the needful.
• V. Uthirapathi vs. Ashrab Ali35

The Supreme Court held in this case that after the execution petition is filed in the court
and the decree-holder dies and his or her legal representatives are not brought on record
for such a case so filed then it becomes a pending case in the eyes of law and there will
be no case of abatement. It just stays pending till the time any heir under such titles arises
again to claim for relief so desired previously.

8. Conclusion
There is a distinction between the two sections of the Civil Procedure Code where Section
50 talks about during the pendency of the suit, the Debtor dies and then the debtor’s legal
representative ensures that the relief is enabled to the Creditor. Whereas under Section 52, the
estate has already been devolved to the legal representative and the suit is started for the
execution of the decree so entitled by the Creditor.

The Burden of proof is different in both these cases, in the former case the burden to prove that
the legal heirs are liable to pay on behalf of the deceased, and in the latter case, it is on the Legal
representative to prove that there had been no estate that should be given to the creditor and has
no devolvement by the deceased in respect to such a transaction. The decree-holder has to
ascertain the fact that the legal representative has obtained the real estate of the deceased
adequately to pay for his relief and then only can he proceed against the person. The person who

34
(2013) 9 SCC 491.
35
AIR 1998 SC 1168.
last handled the estate of the deceased can be proceeded against to enforce any such decree and
he shall be liable to act as the legal representative of the deceased in the case.

Section 50 only provides that in case where judgment debtor dies before decree has been fully
satisfied, the said decree can be executed against the legal representatives of the deceased only
to the extent of the property of the decease which has come to his hands and has not been duly
disposed of. This Section contemplates a situation where decree has been passed and thereafter
judgment- debtor dies before the decree has been fully satisfied. But it does not provide that a
decree passed against a person who is not brought on record in a pending suit can be executed
against him. No provision is made that in case of assignment, creation or devolution of interest
in a pending suit, decree can be executed against the legal representatives without bringing them
on record as party defendants.

As against this, Section 52 provides for a situation where a decree is passed against the legal
representative of a deceased person. In such cases, the legal representative is a judgment debtor.
If the decree is for payment of money out of the property of the deceased, the section permits the
decree to be executed against the property of the deceased in the hands of the legal representatives
and the legal representatives are liable to satisfy the decree only out of the assets of the deceased
on their hands. However, there is no provision which contemplates a situation where a decree
can be executed against the legal representative who is not brought on record in case of death of
the original defendant or in case where there is assignment creation or devolution of an interest
during the pendency of the suit by the defendant.
 Bibliography
Books

• Avtar Singh, Code of Civil Procedure (Central Law Publications, Allahabad).

• C.K. Thakker & M. C. Thakker, Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963 (Eastern Book
Company, Lucknow).
• Sukumar Ray, Textbook on the Code of Civil Procedure (Universal Law Publishing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi).
• Vedula Venkata Ramana, V.J. Rao’s The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (ALT
Publications, Hyderabad).
• C.K. Takwani, Civil Procedure (5 edn., 2003).
• Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, The Code of Civil Procedure I (18th edn., 2016).

Websites

• http://journal.jusimperator.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Jhalak-Paper-execution.pdf
(last visited on December 03, 2021).
• http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1908-05.pdf (last visited on December 03,
2021).
• http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/Title%20NO.134(As%20Per%20Workshop%20List%
20title%20no134%20pdf).pdf (last visited on December 03, 2021).
• https://www.legalbites.in/important-definitions-cpc/ (last visited on December 03, 2021).
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1528864/ (last visited on December 03, 2021).