the minutes of execution are the testament to that. ((See Appeal court decision No. 357/2010 and the Supreme Court decision No. 357/2010 both deposited in the same execution file 71/2007)) This denouncement is incorrect, and as such should have to be rejected because it is legally determined that a review request shall be heard under Article (215) of Civil Procedures Act for 1983. The review provided for in the Article in question as established in the adjudication of this court is not a method of appeal in cassation but an exceptional proceeding granted to the Supreme Court for reviewing its judgments on its own motion while considering the extent of the cassation decision violation of the conclusive provisions of Sharia or the apparent Articles of Law. In pursuant to the perusal of the present review request, the judgment of the Supreme Court (the subject matter of the request) and all papers it was evident that there is no violation of Sharia and Law. The judgment the subject matter of the request, however, came in conformity with law and Sharia. Article (235/a) of Civil Procedures Act for 1983 provides that ((the court which undertakes the execution shall be responsible for adjudication on all temporary and substantive execution disputes whatsoever their value and whether filed by parties or others.)) Within the framework of understanding the contents of this Article, it is determined that the execution problems are not a kind of grievance in the judgment under which the execution is intended if execution has taken place under a judgment, but they are disputes relating to the conditions necessitated by law as to be fulfilled for the execution. The execution judge is not responsible for hearing disputes relating to settlement of a dispute over a principal right, but his task is restricted to the enforcement of the text of the writ of execution. This is because the requests which are relevant to substantive execution dispute relating to a principal right do not fall within the judge competence and are different from temporary execution dispute in respect of which litigants request for a temporary procedure without affecting the principal right. It is established in the minutes that the claimant requests for forfeiture of the awarded alimony for his children are in question. There is no doubt that such request affects the awarded principal right under the writ of execution which does not fall within the competence of the executing judge. As such, it should have to be rejected and the claimant has the option of recoursing to the normal court for filing a claim for forfeiting the alimony of the said children as his interest may so dictate.