A legal representative’s execution liability remains undetermined until the Section 50 CPC inquiry concludes.

The respondent sought to execute a decree in O.S. No. 500/2017 against the deceased judgment debtor’s estate.

The petitioner, the deceased’s wife and one of his legal heirs, was brought on record in the execution proceedings.

The Executing Court ordered attachment of 50% of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties referred to in a Release Deed dated 16 October 2019 and standing in the petitioner’s name.

The petitioner’s application to review the impleadment order was dismissed; the Executing Court stated that the inquiry under Section 50 CPC had not been dispensed with or concluded and that the extent of the inherited estate and the petitioner’s liability remained to be determined.

The petitioner challenged the attachment order and review dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the attachment order was liable to be set aside because the Executing Court had not completed the Section 50 CPC inquiry into the estate inherited by the petitioner and her liability as a legal representative.

2. Whether the Executing Court’s orders warranted interference under Article 227, including on the ground that other legal heirs had not been brought on record.

Section 50 CPC governs execution of a decree against the legal representative of a deceased judgment debtor and requires determination of the representative’s liability by reference to the property of the deceased that has come into the representative’s hands and has not been duly disposed of.

Order XXI Rules 22 and 54 CPC concern notice and attachment in execution; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review on, among other grounds, an error apparent on the face of the record.

The High Court considered these provisions alongside its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

No precedent was cited.

The Executing Court had recorded that the Section 50 inquiry remained pending and that neither the extent of the estate inherited nor the petitioner’s ultimate liability had been determined.

The attachment was limited to a 50% share in the properties identified in the Release Deed and standing in the petitioner’s name.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the petitioner’s objections—that liability had been determined without the inquiry or without joining all legal heirs—were premature, as those matters remained open for consideration in the execution proceedings.

No error apparent or other basis for supervisory interference was shown.

The petitioner’s objections concerning the Section 50 inquiry, the extent of the inherited estate, and liability remained open for determination by the Executing Court.