On 14/07/2014 the Appeal Court delivered its decision No. 400/2014 upholding the appealed decision and cancelling the appeal. The creditor (respondent) was dissatisfied with such adjudication and challenged it under an appeal in cassation No. 560/Cassation/2014 before the Supreme Court. On 05/01/2015 the Supreme Court delivered by majority a cassation decision no. 780/2014 cancelling the contested judgment and ordering respondent to file a claim for forfeiture of alimony if he so wishes by reasons thereof ((the executing court is an automatic court which should execute the judgment automatically and may not intervene in respect of amendment, cancellation, reconsideration, review or correction and therefore respondent’s request (debtor) for forfeiture of fostered children`s alimony does not fall within the competence of the executing court and is not deemed an executing dispute as it touches the basis of judgment under Article (217) of Civil Procedures Act for 1983, so forfeiture of alimony must be under a separate claim in which the respondent shall prove that both fostered children have reached a level at which their counterparts may make earnings etc.)) A review request No. 67/Review/2015 has been brought forward before us by Advocate Nader Haj Adam on behalf of debtor Bashir Mohamed Adam on 18/03/2015 seeking a review of the Supreme Court Judgment the object of the request to cancel it and to uphold the decisions of the executing court and then the appeal court which forfeits the alimony of fostered children Amir and Hatim for reasons provided along with the evidence as of the date the request for forfeiture of alimony on 07/04/2013. Since the papers contain a document evidencing that the claimant has received a copy of the cassation decision (the subject matter of the request) through his attorney on 04/03/2015, the request is deemed to be submitted within the appointed time satisfying legal status thereof and justifying its acceptance formally and therefore it is formally acceptable. With regard to the subject matter, the claimant denounced the Supreme Court adjudication as being in contravention of law, and its application and interpretation and omitting judicial precedents saying that in this respect: 1. The executing court is not an automatic court for executing the judgment automatically but should hear disputes arising out by reason of executing the judgment and must adjudicate thereon as provided for in Article (235) of Civil Procedures Act which gives the executing court the power of adjudicating on all substantive and temporary execution disputes as well as the judicial precedent of the judgments magazine 2005 - Cassation Decision No. 1/2005, containeda rule for forfeiture of alimony once death, earnings or divorce is proved with no need for a new judgment. 2. The claimant (debtor has previously in respect of the same execution submitted a request for forfeiting alimony of the fostered child Yasmin because she has been graduated from the Faculty of Pharmacy working in the morning business hours and earning a salary sufficient to maintain her. The executing court heard the evidence for the same and the decision forfeiting the alimony was upheld at the appeal court and the Supreme Court levels where