( 1 ) THIS revision petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, arises from the order dated 23-6-1998 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Mr. J. J. Subramanya), Koratagere, in Execution Case No. 30/97, whereby the trial Court has sustained the objections of the judgment-debtor (petitioner herein) regarding the non-joinder of the legal representatives of the decree-holder and directed the decree-holder to rectify the defect within the time prescribed by the Court itself i. e. , one month and the other objection raised by the judgment-debtor to the effect that the execution application is not maintainable because no probate and succession certificate has been attached or produced along with the application for execution, as well as the objection regarding the identity of the property or the signatures of the decree-holder Nos. 2 to 4 alleging to have been forged by the first decree-holder.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are : That the decree-holders (respondents) have filed a suit for delivery of possession of the land in dispute i. e. , S. No. 306/1 of Budamaranahalli village in favour of the plaintiff the opposite party. The suit had been filed in the year 1972 in O. S. No. 326/1972 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Madhugiri. The trial Court decreed the suit and the defendant, who is the revision-petitioner before this Court has filed R. A. No. 153/1974 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tumkur, which had been dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge, Tumkur. Again the defendant-revision-petitioner filed the second appeal in R. S. A. No. 787/78 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The second appeal was decided by this Court by way of compromise decree dated 3-6-1988. Thereafter the original decree-holder has filed the Execution Petition No. 63/1988 in the Court of the Munsiff at Madhugiri. During the pendency of the said execution petition, the decree-holder died. Later on Execution Petition No. 58/93 was filed by Smt. Susheelamma and Virajamma. That execution petition was withdrawn for some technical defect. Thereafter execution petition bearing No. 30 of 1997 was moved by the legal representatives of the deceased original decree-holder H. S. Rangachar, before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and J. M. F. C. , Koratagere.

( 3 ) THE judgment-debtor has filed his objections in the execution case taking various pleas to the effect that the execution petition filed by the decree-holders is not maintainable as all the legal representatives of the deceased- decree-holder have not been impleaded in the petition. He further took the plea that decree-holder No. 2 was residing in Switzerland, and decree-holders Nos. 3 and 4 were residing at Bombay and Mysore respectively and he apprehends that the signatures of decree-holders Nos. 2 to 4 were forged by the first decree-holder. He also took the plea that the boundaries mentioned in the schedule to the petition are wrong and that the judgment-debtor is ready and willing to deliver possession of 1 acres 04 guntas of land on the northern side of Sy. No. 306 measuring totally 8 acres adjoining S. No. 305 within the time fixed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore.

( 4 ) THE execution Court referred to the memo filed by the Counsel for the decree-holders that Smt. Susheelamma, daughter of the deceased-decree-holder and one of the legal representatives of the deceased-H. S. Rangachar died four years back after the filing of the previous execution petition. Taking that into consideration, the Court below opined that the interest of Susheelamma will be inherited by her sons and by her mother. The execution Court opined that because of the non-joinder of all the legal representatives of the deceased-decree-holder, there was only technical defect and granted one month's time to rectify the defect by impleading the legal representatives of the deceased-Susheelamma.

( 5 ) AS regards the objection to the effect that the decree-holder ha