JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawals, J. - Suit No. 9 of 1973 was filed by the State Bank of India, Rampur for recovery of Rs. 32,676.62 against Nawab Syed Murtaza Ali Khan of Rampur and his wife Begum Aftab Zamani in the court of the Additional District Judge I, Rampur. The suit was decreed on 19.1.1974 against the Nawab aforesaid but was dismissed against his wife Begum Aftab Zamani. 2. Syed Muilaza Ali Khan died in 1982. The State Bank of India filed an execution application on 28.8.1985. In column No. 9 it was stated: "9. Against whom execution sought J.D. No. 1." In column No. 10 of the applied' in it was stated that judgment-debtor No. 1 diet after the passing of the decree and that judgment-debtor No. 2 was one of his legal represented es and it was prayed that 3 bighas, out of plot No. 82 of agricultural land measuring 24 bighas, 13 biswas in village Shadinagar, Patti chotey, district Sadar Rampur might be attached and sold. 3. Begum Aftab Zamani filed objections. Among these objections, one of them as that as execution was sought against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, it was necessary that all the heirs were impleaded. The second ground was that the rule of primogeniture would apply to the present case, consequently, the execution was misconceived. 4. The learned Additional District Judge rejected the objections. Thereafter Begum Aftab Zamani filed an application which was, to my mind, an application in the nature of review. That too was dismissed on 25.8.1987. Against these orders the present revision has been filed. 5. Having heard counsel for the applicant at great length I am of the view that it is not necessary for me to examine and decide the merits of various points raised in support of the application. It would be sufficient to point out that Begum Aftab Zamani claimed that she was not heir and that she had not inherited am property from her husband. She also claimed that the aforesaid plot could be attached and sold. 6. The argument of the opposite party Bank is that since on her own case the applicant has no right, title or interest in the agricultural plot, sought to be attached, she had no locus standi to file the present revision. She also claimed that the aforesaid plot could be attached and sold. 6. The argument of the opposite party Bank is that since on her own case the applicant has no right, title or interest in the agricultural plot, sought to be attached, she had no locus standi to file the present revision. In revision it was urged that interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be made in favour of a party who has any interest in the litigation. 7. Meeting the aforesaid objection, applicants counsel admitted that she had no right or title over the property, but what he urged was that in case the plot was sold, her future right to get maintenance from the same might be affected and, as such, it is necessary that the attachment applied be lifted. Counsel urged that by the attachment of the property the applicants other decree-holders against the deceased Nawab aforesaid be encouraged and file executions against the remaining portion of the said plot. 8. The submission made by the applicants counsel in justification of the revision application does not convince me. On repeated questions being asked, the applicants counsel admitted that the applicant had no interest of any type over the property attached by the State Bank of Indian consequently, no interference under Section 15th the Code of Civil Procedure is called for. Section 115 of the Code confers jurisdiction of the nature which has to be exercised in the interest of justice. Consequently, I need not decide the objections. It is admitted that the decree passed in favour of the State Bank of India against the Nawab aforesaid has become final. The decretal amount comes to more than Rs. 62,000.00. The objection of the applicant appears to me to be an attempt to thwart the decree. It is in the fitness of things that when the decree has become final the State Bank of India must receive the amount, which is a public body. 9. The revision is, consequently, rejected summarily. Certified copy of the order may be issued within three days to the counsel for the applicant oik "his making an application for the purpose.