JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral) - This revision petition arises against an order passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing the objections filed by the petitioner against the execution of the decree dated 22.7.1987. 2. The petitioner by way of objection petition has challenged the execution of the decree on the plea that he had purchased the land from the Judgment Debtors by way of registered sale-deed on 19.4.1996 and, therefore, he could not be dispossessed in the execution of the decree. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. In view of the decree dated 22.7.1987 the petitioner merely steps into the shoes of the Judgment Debtors and therefore, had no independent right to file the said objection. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that the Judgement Debtors were owners of 1/12th share each whereas the decree was for 1/2 share each and therefore, the same was not executable. Learned Executing Court already took note of this aspect and has ordered that the decree-holders would be entitled to possession of 1/6th share of the land sold in view of the fact that the decree-holders were owners of 1/12th share each. Once this position is accepted by the decree-holders the objector possibly can have no objection to the same. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter contended that it was not open to the Executing Court to amend the decree and in support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Bai Shakriben (Dead) by Natwar Melsingh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3323. 5. I have gone through the said judgment and find that it does not support the case of the petitioner as by way of the impugned order no additional rights have been given to the decree-holders. It is always open to the Decree Holders to accept less than what is granted to them in the judgment and decree and once a part of the decree is found to be executable the Executing Court can always execute the said part. Thus, no benefit can be taken from the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. 6. Thus, there is no illegality or error in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned court below which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Dismissed. Thus, no benefit can be taken from the judgment relied upon by the petitioner. 6. Thus, there is no illegality or error in exercise of jurisdiction by the learned court below which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.