1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Adv. Mr. V.R. Mundra waives service on behalf of respondent sole. By consent, this Civil Revision Application is taken up for final hearing.

2. Present applicant, the wife of original judgment debtor, raised the first objection, namely that the decree holder, brought on record in place of original decree holder -Kalubai who had filed the execution, was not her legal heir. In my opinion, this objection was rightly overruled in view of the fact that in Regular Darkhast No. 8 of 2003, the present respondent had brought on record a Will executed in his favour. As a result, he was brought on record in place of Original Decree-holder -Kalubai in the execution proceedings and as such he continued to pursue the execution proceedings. That order brining the respondent on record has attained finality.

3. The contention raised by learned Adv. Mr. Kalwaghe for the applicant that the present decree holder, who is the wife of original judgment debtor, was not aware about it and, therefore, the objection should have been entertained by the Executing Court, does not appeal to me, since he stepped into the shoes of her husband.

4. The