IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1152 of 2008 RAJA RAM HARIZAN Versus BIRENDRA RAM & ORS ----------- 3 14.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The only submission of the counsel for the petitioner as against the impugned order is that the court below has committed jurisdictional error in allowing the substitution in a miscellaneous case without taking into account the provision of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short C.P.C.) and in process ignoring the delay of 147 days. This Court would find that the aforesaid submission of the counsel for the petitioner is completely devoid of any merit because Order XXII Rule 12 of the C.P.C. makes it clear that the provision of Order XXII Rules 3, 4 & 8 relating to substitution and abatement shall not be made applicable to an execution proceeding or a case. Admittedly, the petitioner, decree holder, had filed an execution case for the execution of decree and at that stage, the opposite parties had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97 & 99. It was this application which was numbered as a separate miscellaneous case but nonetheless it remained part of execution proceedings. If during the pendency of such miscellaneous case, the defendant-opposite party had died, he was definitely required to be substituted and for doing so, the court below could have taken recourse of Order I Rule 10 of the C.P.C. or Section 115 of the C.P.C. That being so, this Court would not find any error much less 2 jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to be interfered under Section 115 of the C.P.C. At the same time, this Court would find that the decree was passed in the year 1998 and the matter is still pending for next 11 years only for deciding the objection under Order XXI Rule 97 & 99 of the C.P.C. This is definitely not encouraging. In that view of the matter, this Court, while dismissing this civil revision application, would direct the court below to ensure that the proceeding under Order XXI Rule 97 initiated by the opposite parties must be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations/direction, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)