JUDGMENT
R.S. Kejriwal, J.
1. This revision has been directed against the order dated 14.1.1991, passed by learned M.J.M. 1st Class, Kekri, whereby the said Court rejected the execution application filed by the petitioners.
2. The brief relevant facts of revision are that Sarva Shri Khemraj and Nemichand as Managers and Proprietors of Hindu Undivided Family business of M/s Peerumal Khemraj, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4940/- with interest thereon in the court of M.J.M. Kekri. The suit was decreed on the basis of compromise on 7.12.1977 for a sum of Rs. 4500/- including costs of the suit. The plaintiffs were awarded interest in the sum of Rs. 111/-. The decreetal amount was to-be paid by judgment-debtors in instalments. The judgment-debtors paid a few instalments and thereafter they did not pay the balance amount. Shri Khem Raj decree holder expired on 21.2.1982 and Shri Nemi Chand expired on 16.6.1981. Layer on the petitioners filed execution application for recovery of balance amount from the judgment-debtro. The judgment debtor raised on objection that as the petitioners have not obtained succession certificate and as such the execution application deserves to be dismissed. The objection of the judgment debtor was allowed by the Executing Court vide order dated 14.1.1991 and the execution application was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners did not obtain any succession certificate after the death of decree holders. Against this order, the decree holder-petitioners have come in revision.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
4. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Executing Court was not justified in dismissing the execution application. It should have stayed the proceedings of said application and should have directed the petitioners to obtain succession certificate. But the Executing-Court by rejecting the application had exceeded its jurisdiction. In support of his argument, Mr. Gandevia placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in R.L.W. 1968 589. In this case also the Executing Court with a direction that a reasonable opportunity should be given to the leagal-representatives of the decree holder to obtain and produce the succession certificate before the Executing Court to enable them to proceed with the execution of the decree. Section 214(b) provides that no court shall proceed, upon an application of a person claiming to be so entitled, to execute against such a debtor a decree or order for the payment of his bebt, except on the production, by the person so claiming of succession certificate.
5. Mr. Gandevia further submits that he has obtained a succession certificate from teh Distt. Judge, Ajmer. He also produced a photo copy of the same before this Court.
6. Mr. Garg, counsel for the non-petitioner opposed the revision on the ground that the Executing Court did not commit any illegality and irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction and as such the order can not be set-aside.
7. I do not agree with the argument advanced by Mr. Garg. The Executing Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in dismissing the Executing Application for want of succession certificate. Under these circumstances, I set-aside the order of the Executing Court dated 14.1.1991 and remand the case to the said Court back with a direction to give opportunity to the petitioners to produce succession certificate before that Court and then to proceed further in accordance with law.
Both the parties shall bear their own costs.