IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2741 of 2010. Date of Decision : 27.4.2010. Subhash ......Petitioner Versus Mukesh Devi & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated April 5 th, 2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat, whereby objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed. 2. The solitary contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decree cannot be executed against the petitioner as Telu Ram father of the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, died prior to the decree hence, decree against a dead man is nothing but nullity which has no sanctity in the eyes of law. Once the decree is nullity against his father, it also cannot be enforced against him being his legal representative. 3. Order 22 Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who, having filed it has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing; and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place.” Civil Revision No.2741 of 2010. (2) 4. A plain reading of the aforesaid order shows that judgment can be pronounced notwithstanding the death of the defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. As find mentioned in the order under challenge, upon notice of the suit, Telu Ram appeared in the Court and sought adjournment to file Written-statement. Thereafter, neither Telu Ram appeared nor filed any Written- statement and he was proceeded against ex-parte on January 25 th, 2001 and ultimately an ex-parte decree was passed on January 12 th, 2004. Under these circumstances, the legal course for the petitioner being legal representative of the deceased-defendant was to apply for setting-aside the decree qua him. The Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and it is to be executed as it stands passed. The objections during the execution petition were mis-conceived. In view of this, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable. 5. The revision petition is dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 27.4.2010. SN