ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE petitioners, who are judgment debtors, filed an objection to the further execution of the decree on the ground that the heirs of the deceased-decree-holder have not been brought on the record and, therefore, this execution cannot proceed. The executing Court rejected this object and continued with the execution. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed a revision before the revisional Court. The revisional Court has categorically recorded a finding that there is no dispute that during the pendency of the execution and after the death of the deceased decree-holder their heirs have executed a relinquishment deed in favour of remaining decree-holders. In this view of the matter provision of Order XXI, Rule 15 is applicable and there is no defect which may bar the execution of the decree. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, sri Ramendra Asthana, argued that reading Order XXII, Rule 12 CPC along with order XXI, Rule 15 and in view of law laid down by this Court reported in Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath, AIR 1957 Allahabad 647, which is a Division Bench decision, and a recent decision Makkhan Lal Jaiswal v. Executive Engineer reported in 2002 (1) allahabad Weekly Cases 662 ( AIR 2002 All 75 ). He particularly relied upon para 6 of the judgment which is reproduced below:"6. In Manmohan Dayal v. Kailash Nath, air 1957 All 647 . Division Bench of this court has observed that if an execution is already pending at the instance on the decree-holder his legal representatives after his death need not make a fresh application for execution and it is sufficient that they apply for continuation of the proceeding in the pending execution. " ( 4 ) IN the Division Bench decision of this court reported in AIR 1957 Alld 647 in para 2 the Division Bench referred to a Full Bench decision Baij Nath v. Ram Bharose reported in AIR 1927 Allahabad 165 that the legal representatives of two deceased decree-holders were entitled to ask for continuation of the execution proceedings without moving any application for execution. In the facts of the case in hand particularly where the deceased decree-holder had already executed relinquishment deed in favour of remaining decree-holders the question of bringing on record their heirs (deceased decree-holders) is not at all necessary either in law or in the interest of justice. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances I do not find any error committed by the Courts below. This writ petition has no force. It is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .