JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Admitted facts in this case are that Smt Jamna Devi is the wife of Dharam Singh and she bad instituted proceedings under section 125, Cr, P. C. wherein she had been allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 125 per month. It is further admitted by the petitioner Dharam Singh that he had married for the second time one Smt. Meera and from her he got three children. Respondent Jamna Devi had taken out execution of order of maintenance which was passed in her favour under section 125 Cr. P. C. The land of Dharam Singh, petitioner had been attached in execution of that order and while making statement in the Court he has admitted that in order to defeat and delay the execution he has transferred by way of gift the suit land in favour of his real sister Smt. Krishni. Respondent filed a suit for declaration challenging the gift in favour of Smt, Krishni by the petitioner Dharam Singh vide suit No4 392/1 of 1991 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ghumarwin. It appears that the matter was taken up in Lok Adalat where Dharam Singh agreed to transfer four Bighas of cultivable land and one Bigha of Kharetar land alongwith house and kitchen measuring 9 x 17 Hath in a double storeyed building. On this arrangement a compromise decree came to be passed in this suit No. 392/1 of 1992 by the said Court. When the petitioner No. 1 failed to abide by the terms of compromise, the respondent was constrained to file execution of the decree aforesaid, wherein objections were raised under section 47 by the J Ds. Such objections were dismissed by the trial Court. Petitioners filed an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. against the dismissal of their objections before the District Judge, Bilaspur (although the appeal was not maintainable as after amendment of section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure which defines decree, adjudication of objections under section 47, C. P. C. has been taken out of the purview of decree), and the said appeal also met the same fate. Hence, this petition. 3. Hence, this petition. 3. Shri R. K, Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioners has made an attempt though in vain that his clients were under a mistaken and bona fide belief that the respondent would have life interest only in respect of the land and house that had been agreed to be transferred in her favour in terms of the statements made in suit No. 392-1/91 before the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin. It may be reiterated here that this suit was filed by Smt. Jamna Devi challenging the gift made by Dharam Singh, petitioner No. 1 in the present case, in favour of his real sister and it was during the pendency of this case that compromise decree was passed, copy of which has been filed by the petitioner in the present case. 4. The only objection raised by the petitioners is that since this is a case of compromise and unless the compromise was in writing, the trial Court had erred in passing the compromise decree in suit No. 392-1/91 on 12-9-1992 in case titled as Jamna Devi v Dharamu and others This plea has been raised simply to be rejected. In this case, the statement of not only of Dharam Singh but of Krishna Devi was also recorded besides the statement of Smt Jamna Devi, respondent. It appears that the petitioners as well as late Smt. Krishna were interested in only ensuring that the respondent is not able to get the benefit of order under section 125, Cr P. C. or is unable to reap the fruits of the decree aforesaid in Civil Suit No. 392/ 1 of 1991 passed by the Sub-Judge, Ghumarwin and thus, she is left high and dry besides being again put to litigation In fact, the petitioners are abusing the process of law and court and have not come to the Court with clean hands. Court will only come to the rescue of a litigant who comes bonafide and not to a person like the present petitioners who are abusing as well as misusing the process of law and court and thus making its orders meaningless. This type of litigation has to be curbed. Petitioner and late Smt. Krishna Devi, have not only defined the decree, but have further denied the benefit of decree to the respondent by adopting dilatory tactics, which in fact defeat the public purpose. This type of litigation has to be curbed. Petitioner and late Smt. Krishna Devi, have not only defined the decree, but have further denied the benefit of decree to the respondent by adopting dilatory tactics, which in fact defeat the public purpose. And in doing so they made the Court process an instrument of abuse. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respondent has successfully, through judicial process been denied the fruits of the compromise, which is not the purpose, much less intendment of any judicial process. 5. In the background of the case, the petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are burdened with special costs in the present revision petition which are quantified at Rs. 1,500. While dismissing the revision petition, the trial Court is directed to ensure that the execution petition filed by the respondent, Smt. Jamna Devi for executing the decree passed by it in Civil Suit No. 392-1/91 titled as Jamna Devi v. Dharmu and others, is executed expeditiously in its letter and spirit. Such a direction has been issued so that the petitioners or any other person acting for or on their behalf as well for their benefit does not further abuse and/or misuse the process of Jaw to deny the legitimate claim of the respondent, Smt. Jamna Devi. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 2-8-1996 when the trial Court will proceed with the execution petition with utmost expedition. Petition dismissed.