C.R. No. 1886 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1886 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 11, 2009 Birawan Bai and others …..Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. T.C. Dhanwal, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are the natural heirs of Jai Dayal who was entitled to the compensation for his land acquired by the State for public purpose. As award was passed by a Reference Court in his favour on February 26, 2002, however, he died on December 26, 2004. Being natural heirs of Jai Dayal, the petitioners filed an execution application on September 15, 2007 for the release of the amount of compensation lying with the Collector. The Additional District Judge vide impugned order C.R. No. 1886 of 2009 [2] dated January 22, 2009 has dismissed the application on the ground that they are required to obtain a succession certificate for executing the award passed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, though Volume 2 of Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules and Orders, Chapter VI Part B Para 3 lays down that a Civil Court is prohibited from executing a decree in a suit by or upon the application of a person claiming to be entitled to recover a debt or decree in favour of any person deceased, without the production of a probate or letter of administration, or a succession certificate granted under the Succession Certificate Act, 1889, or the Indian Succession Act but the said rules has been interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in Inder Sain and another Vs. Man Singh Gujjar, AIR 1992 P&H 130 which was followed in Nand Singh Vs. Union of India, 2001 (2) CCC 560 holding that there is no requirement of obtaining succession certificate to enable the LRs of the deceased the party to a suit to be substituted as such and that the decree holders are fully entitled to file an application for execution of the decree. In Nand Singh’s case (supra) it was argued before the Single Bench that under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, legislature has imposed an obligation upon the Court to determine as to who is the legal representatives of the deceased in a suit or execution. The lower Court seems to have distinguished the ratio of the judgments passed in Inder Sain’s case (supra) and Nand Singh’s case (supra) on the ground that the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had already died prior to the filing of execution application. C.R. No. 1886 of 2009 [3] Counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice that the amount of award is only around Rs.50000/- which is to be disbursed to all the heirs of decree-holder Jai Dayal. Following the ratio of the Division Bench in Inder Sain’s case (supra), this petition is allowed and it is ordered that the Executing Court of Additional District Judge will take up the application for execution of the award dated February 26, 2002, determine summarily regarding the status of petitioners being the natural/ legal heirs of Jai Dayal and would execute the award which has been passed in favour of Jai Dayal. November 11, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE