Balasubramaniam and Another v. Upali De Silva and Another – sllr 1998 volume 2 page 229

In the case between Balasubramaniam and Another (Plaintiffs) and Upali De Silva and Another (Defendants), the court addressed the issue of whether, in execution proceedings following the death of a judgment creditor, it is legally required under section 341(3) of the Civil Procedure Code to serve notice on respondents when substituting a legal representative. The court held that the substitution of the deceased plaintiff with her legal representative is proper without the necessity of serving such notice, affirming the principle that section 341(3) does not mandate notice to respondents in these circumstances. This decision relied on an analysis of the relevant statutory provisions, emphasizing that a recipient of gifted property may properly qualify as the legal representative for executi