( 1 ) HEARD Mr. S. R. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

( 2 ) IN view of the nature of decree drawn in favour of the orig. plaintiff and agreement of understanding arrived at between one of the plaintiffs and the present petitioner on confirmation given by one Aniruddhray girjashankarray, it will not be possible for this Court to say that the order under challenge is in any way bad or illegal. The Suit for declaration and injunction was filed by two plaintiffs and merely because one of the plaintiffs has been won over by the present petitioner, it will be difficult for this Court to say that the successful party cannot get the order of declaration and injunction executed through the competent Court. The facts placed before this Court by Mr. Patel are that the darkhast Executor-Subhash Trivedi has transferred his interest in Tenement No. 20, in favour of one Shantilal, also would not disentitle him to get the decree executed in absence of any legal and valid transfer in favour of shantilal. On the contrary, Subhash Trivedi-Executor, owner of Tenement No. 20, may be under obligation to see that the litigation pending in the manner of execution applic