1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 235 OF 2008 Smt. Indiraai Narayan Bivalkar since deceased through her legal heirs applicant Nos. 2 & 3 ... Applicants Vs. Shri K.M.Talera & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.V.Bhuskhute, i/b. Mr. Sugandh B.Deshmukh, Advocates, for the appellants. Mr.Madhav Jamdar, Advocate, for the respondents Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 1st April, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The revision applicants are the legal heirs of the original tenant/Judgment debtor. The landlord had filed eviction suit in the year 1965 and that suit was decreed in 1968. The appeal filed by the defendant-tenant was withdrawn in the year 1972 and thus the decree became final. Darkhast No. 1032/1980 was filed for execution of the decree and it is still not executed. Pending the execution proceedings, one of the owners sold away the property in favour of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is a director of that company. 2 Respondent No.4 is the legal heir of the original owner who expired pending the execution proceedings. The purchasers of the property moved an application to be impleaded in the execution proceedings along with the original decree holders. That was objected to by the judgment debtor. That objection came t be rejected. Hence, this revision application. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision-applicant/judgment debtors contended that that the objection is two-fold. Firstly, the sale deed in favour of the purchaser – respondent no.2 is not sufficiently stamped and secondly only one legal heir of the original owner was brought on record. As far as the first objection is concerned, it holds no water as admittedly, the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 is a registered document. If it is found that it was not sufficiently stamped, the party may be required to pay deficit stamp duty but that does not invalidate the document. The second objection has no bearing on the matter because if there are more than one L.Rs. and only one L.R. is brought on record and he proceeds with execution of the decree for and on behalf of all the co-owners, it makes no difference as far as the judgment debtor is concerned.If only one co-sharer files the suit for eviction, the matter may be different, but when the decree has become final, non-joinder of all the L.Rs. of the decree-holder in execution proceeding does not make much difference. Therefore, I find no 3 substance in the present application. 4. In view of the fact that the judgment debtors have been successful in stalling the execution of the decree for last about 40 years and unnecessary objections have been taken, this Revision Application stands dismissed with costs at Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the revision applicant to the respondent No.4. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)