As per case facts, judgment debtors (petitioners) challenged the executing Court's decision to allow amendment applications filed by decree holders in eight execution petitions. Petitioners argued these amendments to the ... execution petition schedule were sought without amending the plaint, preliminary decree, or the Advocate Commissioner's report, and after a 25-year delay, making them time-barred. Decree holders contended the amendments were essential to align the EP schedule with the final decree, which had inadvertently interchanged allotted portions. They also pointed out a prior executing Court finding that the EP needed amendment due to improper property description for proper execution. The question arose whether the executing Court correctly permitted the amendments without prior changes to the plaint or preliminary decree, considering the delay and title disputes. Finally, the High Court upheld the executing Court's orders. It ruled that the amendments were necessary to correct inadvertent errors and align EPs with the final decree, enabling decree holders to realize the decree's benefits. Delay was not a factor against decree holders, especially given the executing Court's earlier observation that the decree could not be executed otherwise. Petitioners can file additional objections to executability but cannot seek further EP amendments. The executing Court must dispose of EPs by 31.03.2026.