1 ( 2025:HHC:39113 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No.157 of 2025 Date of Decision : 19.11.2025 Ajay Singh …… Petitioner Versus Jagdev Singh and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondents : Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 04.08.2025, whereby, the Executing Court had dismissed the objection filed by the present petitioner/Judgment Debtors. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order and the pleadings appended therewith. 3. Respondent No.1, in the case at hand, had entered into an agreement to sell dated 26.08.2009 with the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner/Judgment Debtor and proforma respondents No.2 to 7/Judgment Debtors. Qua the said agreement to sell, a suit for specific performance was filed by the present respondent No.1/Decree Holders. The same was instituted on 21.08.2012 and decided on 28.04.2022. The suit so filed was disposed of in the following terms:- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:39113 ) “35. … … …suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs and defendant is directed to execute the sale deed in accordance with agreement dated 26.08.2009 Ex.PW-2/B on receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.9,50,000/-. To be explicit, the remaining sale consideration shall be paid or tendered by the plaintiff without any delay. The defendant is also restrained from transferring the suit land in favour of any other person or creating charge or encumbrance therein.” 4. During the pendency of the suit, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, had been proceeded against ex-parte on 27.11.2020. Subsequent thereto, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor had died on 23.01.2022, i.e., prior to the final adjudication of the lis before the Trial Court, i.e., on 28.04.2022. On the death of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor, an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the present respondent No.1/Decree Holder for exempting the respondent No.1/plaintiff/Judgment Debtor to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased defendant, i.e., predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. The said application was allowed by the Court on 25.02.2022. 5. The ex-parte decree dated 28.04.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. Other than the aforesaid, order dated 27.11.2020 whereby their predecessor-in-interest (original defendant) had been proceeded against ex-parte, was never assailed. Besides the aforesaid order dated 25.02.2022 whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Code exempting the plaintiff/Judgment Debtor from bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased original defendant 3 ( 2025:HHC:39113 ) (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor) was allowed, has also not been assailed. 6. Admittedly, in the case at hand, prior to the passing of the ex- parte decree in the case at hand on 28.04.2022, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner/Judgment Debtor (original defendant) had died on 23.01.2022. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, an application under Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Code was preferred by respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking exemption from substituting the legal heirs of deceased original defendant, i.e., predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor. The same was allowed vide order dated 25.02.2022. 7. Since by ex-parte decree and the orders passed therein, whereby the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner/Judgment Debtor had been proceeded against ex-parte on 27.11.2020, vide order dated 25.02.2022, the trial Court had exempted the plaintiff/Judgment Debtor from bringing on record the legal heirs of deceased original defendant, therefore, ex-parte judgment and decree, in the case at hand, would have the same force and effect in terms of Order 22 Rule 4(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, as if it had been pronounced before the death took place. 8. Other than the aforesaid, on the death of the original defendant (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/Judgment Debtor), his estate shall bequeath upon the petitioner/proforma respondents/Judgment Debtors. The property so inherited is now bound by the ex-parte decree passed in the case at hand. Hence, in view of the afore-stated, the sole objection in the case at 4 ( 2025:HHC:39113 ) hand that the decree in the case at hand has been passed against a dead person, is of no avail. 9. In view of above, I see no reason to interfere in the well reasoned judgment passed by the Executing Court. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also, the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) November 19, 2025 (KS) Judge