JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed by the petitioners-objectors/defendants No.2 and 3 under Section 115 CPC has been made to the order dated 04.09.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby the objections filed by the petitioners under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed and the execution filed by the respondent No.1/1 has been entertained and allowed to be proceeded. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that the respondent No.1 filed a civil suit for possession and permanent injunction in relation to the suit property. The suit filed by the respondent No.1 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.9.1997. The petitioners aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 2.9.1997 preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. Pending appeal, respondent No.1 – decree holder/plaintiff expired on 13.3.1998. In the first appeal, a pre-emptory order was passed which could not be complied with by the petitioners, therefore, first appeal was dismissed in default on 20.8.2004. The respondent No.1/1 filed execution petition claiming himself to be sole son and sole legal representative of the deceased respondent No.1 – plaintiff/decree holder on 24.5.2006. Later on, respondent No.1/1 also filed an application praying therein to treat him as legal representative of the respondent No.1. The said application was allowed order dated 11.7.2007. 3. The petitioners filed objection in the execution proceedings. Later on the petitioners also filed an application under Section 151 CPC for dismissing the execution petition. The respondent No.1/1 filed reply to the objection application on 17.10.2008. The petitioners also filed application under Order 11 Rule 12 and 14 CPC. The petitioners also filed application to record the evidence of party to decide the objections. The executing Court vide order dated 3.8.2018 declined to record the evidence and dismissed both the applications. The executing Court after hearing, both the parties on the objection application as also on the application dated 27.5.2019 dismissed the objections vide order dated 4.9.2019. 4. Learned counsel argued that the executing Court committed jurisdictional error and perversity in dismissing the objections and not holding inquiry about the said issue under the impression that the respondent No.1/1 was the power of attorney holder of the respondent No.1 during the course of trial of the suit, so, such objections should have been raised during the course of trial. Whereas, during the trial of the suit, the respondent No.1 – plaintiff was alive, thus, the question of her son and legal representative does not arise. The learned executing Court before entertaining and proceeding the execution it was necessary to decide the legal right of the respondent No.1/1 to file and to pursue the execution and much as in his capacity and status being sole son and sole legal representative of the respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that the objections of the petitioners were within the ambit and scope of section 47 CPC. The executing Court without any inquiry and also without recording any evidence, dismissed the objections as well as the application filed by the petitioners vide order dated 4.9.2019. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Varadarajan vs. Kanakavalli and Ors., reported in AIR 2020 SC 740 . 5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent – decree holder – plaintiff opposed the submissions and supported the impugned order passed by the Court below. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and meticulously scanned and scrutinized the entire material made available to the Court. 7. In the case of Varadarajan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the legal position with regard to inter se dispute between the rival legal representatives or anybody claiming any rival title against the appellant-plaintiff. In the instant case, the trial Court while deciding issue No.1 recorded finding that the respondent No.1/1 happens to be the sole son and sole legal representative of late Smt. Nadra Sultana. In the instant case, the trial Court while deciding issue No.1 recorded finding that the respondent No.1/1 happens to be the sole son and sole legal representative of late Smt. Nadra Sultana. The finding of the trial Court is ad-infra:- ^^7& izfroknh dk ;g dFku gS fd lyeku ijost okfn;k FkkA fulkj dk iq= ugha gSa o bl lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i= Hkh is'k gqvk gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa lyeku ds c;ku fnukad 9-10-96 dks gq, ijUrq bl lEcU/k esa izkFkZuk i= fnukad 20-8-97 dks is'k fd;k x;k gSa tks Lo;a esa gh izkFkZuk i= dh lR;rk esa deh ykrk gSA tc fnukad 9-10-96 dks U;k;ky; esa lyeku ds c;ku gq, gSa rc izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ;g vkifRr ugha dh xbZ fd ;g fulkj ;k okfn;k dk iq= ugha gSa lkFk gh izLrqr izkFkZuk i= esa lyeku okfn;k dk iq= ugha gSA ;g fookn dk fo"k; ugha gSA okfn;k dk ;g eq[r;kj gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa ih-MCY;w- 1 lyeku dk ;g dFku gS fd okfn;k us mls izn'kZ&1 ikoj vkQ vVksuhZ ns j[kh gS ftl ij , ls ch mldh ekrk ds gj i`"B ij gLrk{kj gSA bl izdkj lyeku okfn;k ds eq[r;kj dh gSfl;r ls is'k gqvk gSa] eq[r;kjukek izn'kZ & 1 dks lyeku us lkfcr fd;k gSA 8& izn'kZ&1 eq[r;kjukek U;k;ky; esa fnukad 1-3-96 dks izLrqr dj fn;k x;k Fkk blesa Hkh lyeku dh oYnh;r fulkj vgen crykbZ xbZ gS ijUrq bl ij Hkh vkt rd dksbZ vkifRr izfroknh dh vksj ls ugha dh xbZ lkFk gh ih-MCY;w- 1 lyeku us l'kiFk c;ku fn;k gS fd okfn;k esjh ekrk gS vkSj mlus eq>s izn'kZ&1 ikoj vkQ vVksuhZ ns j[kh gS] bl lEcU/k esa lyeku ls dksbZ izfrijh{kk Hkh ugha dh xbZ gSA 9& bl izdkj izfroknh dh vc ;g vkifRr fd lyeku okfn;k dk iq= ugha gS fujk/kkj gSA^^ 8. In disputably the trial Court while deciding issue No.1 has already dealt with the objections filed by the petitioners with regard to the legal representative of late Smt. Nadra Sultana. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners-objectors admits that against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.1997, an appeal was filed which was dismissed on 20.8.2004. Thus, in execution proceedings, it is not open to challenge such objection and the judgment debtor is not entitled to raise such objections in execution proceedings. 10. I find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. Thus, in execution proceedings, it is not open to challenge such objection and the judgment debtor is not entitled to raise such objections in execution proceedings. 10. I find no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 11. In the result the revision filed by the petitionersobjectors/ defendants No.2 and 3 is without any substance and accordingly stands dismissed.