This revision petition is filed by the legal representative of the 1st defendant/judgment debtor against the attachment of his property for satisfaction of the money decree.
2.The contention of the revision petitioner is that since the decree is against the defendants 1 and 2, the decree holder ought to have proceeded first against the property of the 2nd defendant and not against the property of the 1st defendant, who died pending execution of the decree.
3.This Court while admitting the revision petition has directed the revision petitioner to deposit the entire decree amount and it is now represented that the amount was deposited and also withdrawn by the decree holder. However, it is now brought to the notice of this Court that the 2nd defendant P.S.Natarajan also died and his legal representatives ought to have been brought on record in time, but there is a delay of 2259 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement and to bring the legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant on record.
4.It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the decree holder/1st respondent herein that since the decree amount itself is been satisfied, nothing survives in the execution petition as a consequence, nothing survives in this revision petition also.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the revision petitioner has paid the entire decree amount, they may be given liberty to proceed against the co-judgment debtor/legal representatives for recovery of their share. Needless to point out that if the law permits they can proceed against the co-judgment debtor for recovery of money. For reckoning the period of limitation, pendency of this revision petition before this Court may be taken note of.
With this observation, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To The Sub Court, Sankarankoil..