1 ( 2025:HHC:20442 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.95 of 2022 Date of Decision : 28.06.2025 Hardyal Singh and others …… Petitioners Versus Hardyal Singh (deceased) through LRs. ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Harsh Khanna, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Romesh Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner against impugned order dated 04.01.2022, passed by learned Rent Controller, Court No.1, Shimla, whereby an application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, has been allowed. The legal heirs of the present respondents/Decree Holders have been ordered to be brought on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the petition and the impugned orders. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20442 ) 3. The present petitioners were the landlord, in whose favour the Rent Controller had passed an order of eviction against the predecessors-in- interest of the present respondents. 4. Feeling aggrieved of the eviction order so passed, the predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The same was compromised vide Compromise Deed/Agreement dated 27.12.2019. The compromise so entered into was taken on record. Affidavits of both the parties were taken on record and in terms of comprise dated 27.12.2019, vide order dated 28.12.2019, the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller was suitably modified. 5. The predecessors-in-interest of the present respondents/ tenants preferred an execution. During the pendency of the execution, he died. An application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the deceased was filed. The same was allowed keeping in view Section 146 of the Civil Procedure Code. 6. A legal representative is appointed for orderly conduct of the suit only. The decision qua a party being a legal representative is the result of a summary enquiry against which no appeal has been provided for. The concepts of legal representative and heirship of a deceased party are entirely different. In order to constitute one as a legal representative, it is unnecessary that he should have a beneficial interest in the estate. Executors and administrators are legal representatives though they may have no beneficial interest. Heirs on whom beneficial interest devolved under 3 ( 2025:HHC:20442 ) the law whether statute or other, governing the parties will be legal representatives. Such a decision is not on an issue arising in the suit itself, but is really a matter collateral to the suit and has to be decided before the suit itself can be proceeded with. The decision does not lead to the determination of any issue in the suit. 7. The normal principle arising in a suit—before the decree is passed—that the legal representatives are to be brought on record within a particular period is not applicable to cases of death of the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings. Order 22 Rule 12 engrafts an exemption which provides that where a party to an execution proceeding dies during its pendency, provisions as to abatement do not apply. The Rule is, therefore, for the benefit of the decree-holder, for his heirs need not take steps for substitution under Rule 2 but may apply immediately or at any time while the proceeding is pending, to carry on the proceeding or they may file a fresh execution application. 8. The determination done in the case at hand as to who is the legal representative is only for the limited purpose of representation of the estate of the deceased, for adjudication of the pending execution petition filed by the deceased in the case at hand. Such determination for such limited purpose will not confer on the respondents held to be the legal representative, any right to the property which is the subject-matter of the execution. (See Varadarajan v. Kanakavalli, (2020) 11 SCC 598) 4 ( 2025:HHC:20442 ) 9. In view of the above, present petition devoid of merits, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 8. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14.07.2025. (Bipin Chander Negi) June 28, 2025 (KS) Judge