JUDGMENT : 1. These execution proceedings arise out of a decree, which was passed on 29th August 1905, in favour of Dube Bhola Nath against Janki Prasad. Oman Prasad, whose name appears as appellant in this Court, is the legal representative of Janki Prasad, deceased. Dube Bhola Nath applied for execution of the decree on 12th March 1908. The proceedings resulting from that application were infructuous. On 26th January 1910, Jani Durlab Shankar and others came before the Court whose duty it was to execute the decree and applied for execution. The usual notices were issued. But so far as the record shows no notice was served upon Dube Bhola Nath, Janki Prasad in no way responded to the notice issued to him, and the next order was an order issuing notice calling upon him to show cause why he should not be arrested. This notice was duly served upon him. To this he made no response. Apparently those who had applied for execution of the decree failed to pay the process-fee for arrest, and the application was dismissed. Nothing further was done until 13th January 1912, when Jani Durlab Shankar and others applied as before for execution. This time Oman Prasad appeared and objected inter alia that the application was barred by time, and that the real decree-holder being Dube Bhola Nath, Jani Durlab Shankar and others had no right to take out execution. 2. The Court of first instance, holding that Jani Durlab Shankar and others were neither the decree-holders nor transferees of the decree and were not competent to apply for execution, dismissed the application. Jani Durlab Shankar and others appealed. The appellate Court, agreeing with the lower Court that the applicants were neither the decree-holders nor transferees of the decree, went on however to hold that the order of 12th February 1910 amounted to an order granting the application of Jani Durlab Shankar and others. 3. This order was held as having the force of res judicata and that Oman Prasad cannot go behind it. The lower appellate Court remanded the case for decision on the merits. The present appeal is from this order. 3. This order was held as having the force of res judicata and that Oman Prasad cannot go behind it. The lower appellate Court remanded the case for decision on the merits. The present appeal is from this order. It is contended that the application for execution is time-barred, that the order of 12th February 1910 has not the force of res judicata and that the applicants cannot be brought) on the record as decree-holders, they not having been brought on the record up to the present moment. The lower appellate Court, in arriving at its decision that the order of 12th February 1910 had the force of res judicata, relied upon the case of Behari Lal v. Majid Ali, [1902] 24 All. 138 : (1897) A.W.N. 29, also Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath, [1902] 21 All. 282 : (1902) A.W.N. 63. These cases were again cited in this Court on behalf of the respondents. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is a sharp distinction between the case of Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath, [1902] 21 All. 282 : (1902) A.W.N. 63 and the present case inasmuch as in the former case the judgment-debtor appeared in Court and filed objections. His argument is that the notice which was served in the present case gave no indication to Oman Prasad as to the title under which Jani Durlab Shankar and others were taking out execution proceedings. There is that difference between that case and the present case, and it is to be noted that in the case of Sheoraj Singh v. Kameshar Nath, [1902] 21 All. 282 : (1902) A.W.N. 63 the Court considering the principle laid down in Dhonkar Singh v. Phaklcar Singh, [1893] 15 All. 84 : (1893) A.W.N. 36 held that it did not apply to the disposal of objections of this kind raised in the execution of decree cases. I am of opinion that the present case is sufficiently covered by the cases cited in the lower Court's judgment; and I agree with the lower Court. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.