causation was deficient and the judgment failed to clarify the reasons on which it was based. As such the judgment has become invalid and virtually null. The appellant proved to be more eligible for fosterage and the respondent has no woman eligible for fosterage. The Court has not verified in details such matter. It was evidently proved that the appellant is a dedicated woman and does not keep herself out of sight of the fostered children, which are features that surpass those of the respondent. Upon reviewing the decision of the trial court, the appeal court decision and the petition for appeal in cassation together with whatsoever contained therein, we found that the court of trial heard the evidence of eligibility which was a wrong procedure rather it should have rejected the petition initially. This is because the dispute which falls under the competence of the Execution Court must not relate to the legitimacy of the judgment, and whatsoever enters in the scope of judgment authenticity will not be a reason for dispute over execution. ((See the cassation decision No. 593/2010 - unpublished)). The reasons provided by the objector relate to her eligibility for fosterage and the object of which is a suit if she is desirous of claiming for fosterage. The objection to the execution of judgment does not affect the cause of judgment. The dispute is restricted to whatsoever related to the executive bond as contained in the judicial precedent No. 2/2004 - Magazine 2004 - page 157 wherein the rule has been provided as follows: 1. The substantive dispute relates to the execution procedures without extending beyond them in a manner that will affect the text of judgment. It is incorrect that the dispute to be taken as a means for wastage of the judgment authenticity. The rule is that whatsoever enters in the scope of judgment authenticity is an irrelevant reason for dispute. 2. The substantive dispute is restricted to whatsoever related to the execution bond on which the execution is based including right of execution whether in relation to such right or nature thereof. The decision of the Court is to dismiss the petition, as the petition was sound but contained wrong reasons wherein the objector failed to prove the eligibility. It is the decision which was upheld by the Appeal Court. I am therefore of the opinion that the appeal in cassation should be cancelled along with charges thereof. The opinion of both my colleagues is also left to them. Al Bushra Osman Saleh Supreme Court Judge 10/08/2015 Dr. Ahmed Mohamed Abdul Majeed Supreme Court Judge 17/08/2015 Abdul Hameed Mohamed Abdul Hameed Supreme Court Judge 11/08/2015