THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.929 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.12 of 1986 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nellore against respondent No.2 for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, he filed E.P.No.8 of 2002 for execution of the same. About 100 bags of paddy present in the Rice Mill i.e. respondent No.2 was attached. Claiming to be the lessee of the Rice Mill and owner of paddy, the appellant filed E.A.No.117 of 2001 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. He pleaded that at the relevant point of time, the Rice Mill was leased to him and the stock attached in the E.P. belongs to him. The E.A. was opposed by respondent No.1. Through its order, dated 05.02.2002, the executing Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.1 died during the pendency of the appeal. In fact, applications were filed with a prayer to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 on record. This Court is of the view that it is not necessary to bring the legal representatives on record or to keep the appeal pending any longer. The reason is that the property that was attached in the execution petition was the quantity of 100 bags of rice. After the dismissal of the E.A., the appellant approached this Court and interim stay was granted on 05.04.2002 in C.M.A.M.P.No.6833 of 2002. The attached property cannot be expected to be available at this stage. In case the decree is not otherwise satisfied, the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1 can proceed against respondent No.2 Rice Mill itself. Hence, the appeal is disposed of, leaving it open to the legal representatives of respondent No.1 to proceed against respondent No.2, in case the decree in O.S.No.12 of 1986 is not satisfied as yet. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:23.07.2010 kdl