IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1999/2008 Sharda Krishna Niphadkar PETITIONER VS. Smt.Kantabai @ Laxmibai Upadhye RESPONDENT (since deceased through heirs) Mr.A.B.Avhad ,advocate for thepetitioner Mr.R.M.Haridas ,i/b Mr.P.N.Joshi advocate for the respondent CORAM :A.M.Khanwilkar,J. Date : 15/7/2008 P.C. Heard counsel for the parties. I see no reason to depart from the view taken by the Lower Court while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner at Exh.23 .By that application the petitioner prayed that the heirs and legal representatives of debtor no.3 be issued notice so to obviate in technical objection and till such time this application Exh.23 should not be proceeded further . This contention has been rightly rejected by the court below keeping in mind the provisions of O.21 R.22 (b) of Civil Procedure Code which stipulates that if the decree is put to execute in less than two years notice is not required to be served on the legal representatives of the party to the decree . Counsel for the petitioner,however,would rely on 2 rule 15 of order 21 of Civil Procedure Code to contend that the legal representatives also have to join in the application for execution .That is not the purport of rule 15.Rule 15 stipulates that when the decree executed for and on behalf of all the D.H.the Court will have to protect interest of the persons who have not joined in the application . In other words even if the representatives of defendant no.3 are not party to the execution application that would not make any difference for proceeding with the execution of the decree. For the time being suffice it to observe that the grievance of the petitioner that his application Exh.23 should not proceed until notice is issued to the heirs and legal representatives of debtor no.3 ,the court below has rightly observed that one of the heirs of debtor no.3 has already appeared as witness in the trial of application Exh.23 . Taking over all view of the matter no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction .Dismissed. (A.M.Khanwilkar,J.)