JUDGMENT : - Vineet Saran 1. THIS case has a chequered history. The facts as enumerated below will go to show that the respondent No. 3 has been abusing the process of law for the last more than two decades and despite having lost from all Courts, he is somehow managing to remain in possession of the property in dispute. Taking advantage of the technicalities of law, he has till date, succeeded in depriving the petitioner of the fruits of the decree in his favour. 2. THE brief facts of the case are that a property situate at Lohata Bazar, Sadabad Gate, Hathras was owned by Shadi Lal, the grand father of the petitioner, and after his death, the petitioner Nand Kishore Sharma, son of Natthoo Ram became its owner and landlord. THE respondent No. 3 Mahesh Chand was the tenant of a portion of the said property. In the year 1970, one Sri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Bagicha filed a Suit No. 36 of 1970 against the petitioner and others, including Mahesh Chand. In the said suit, a prayer for declaration was made that Nand Kishore (the petitioner in this case) did not have proprietary right or any right to realise rent of the property in dispute as Shadi Lal had died issuesless. After contest, the suit was dismissed by judgment dated 4.9.1971, against which an appeal was filed which also dismissed by the District Judge, Aligarh on 11.5.1977. This Court also, on 28.11.1977, dismissed the second appeal filed challenging the aforesaid judgments. 3. SINCE the respondent No. 3 was the tenant of the property in dispute and he had defaulted in payment of rent, as such the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of the said respondent No. 3 from the shop in question. The said Suit No. 113 of 1978 was decreed on 6.3.1981. Against the judgment and decree, the respondent No. 3 Mahesh Chand filed a revision before the District Judge, Aligarh, which was dismissed on 28.5.1981. Challenging the said orders, the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 7762 of 1981 which was also dismissed on 15.9.1981, and while dismissing the writ petition, this Court made the following observations : "The petitioner shall, however, not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 30.6.1982 provided he deposits the entire decretal amount and rent, etc. due upto 30.6.1982 by 15.11.1981." 4. due upto 30.6.1982 by 15.11.1981." 4. IT is however, not disputed that the respondent No. 3 did not deposit the decretal amount, nor did he vacate the shop in question. The petitioner, thereafter, initiated execution proceedings against the said respondent No. 3 which was registered as Execution Case No. 22 of 1981. The respondent No. 3 contested the execution proceedings and it has been alleged that he filed false affidavits. He also filed a false affidavit alleging that a compromise had taken place. However, on denial by the petitioner that any compromise had taken place, the application was dismissed. Against such order, the respondent No. 3 filed a Writ Petition No. 432 of 1990 in this Court which was also ultimately dismissed on 6.3.1991 and this Court found that the respondent No. 3 had miserably failed to prove that there was any valid compromise. Dilatory tactics and filing of frivolous objections by the respondent No. 3 in the execution proceedings did not end here. The respondent No. 3 having failed to prove that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, filed a Misc. Application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the decree passed in Suit No. 113 of 1978 which was being executed. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990. In this application, for the first time, the respondent No. 3 came up with the case that the petitioner Nand Kishore was the son of Sri Chand and not Natthoo Ram. In this application, the respondent No. 3 had himself described the petitioner Nand Kishore as son of Natthoo Ram. The respondent No. 3 then moved an application for correction/amendment praying that the father's name of Nand Kishore may be changed/amended as Sri Chand instead of Natthoo Ram, which was rejected on 12.8.1991. A similar amendment application was again filed which was rejected on 17.12.1991 and thereafter, a third amendment application was also rejected on 8.1.1992. 5. THE issue that the petitioner was the son of Natthoo Ram and not Sri Chand had been settled in Suit No. 113 of 1978, where also such application had been filed. But the respondent No. 3 repeatedly filed similar applications in execution case also stating that the petitioner was son of Shri Chand and not son of Natthoo Ram only in order to delay the execution proceedings. 6. But the respondent No. 3 repeatedly filed similar applications in execution case also stating that the petitioner was son of Shri Chand and not son of Natthoo Ram only in order to delay the execution proceedings. 6. HOWEVER, the respondent No. 3 filed yet another Writ Petition No. 17386 of 1991 against an order dated 31.5.1991 passed in the Execution Case No. 22 of 1981 which writ petition has also been dismissed by this Court on 26.7.2002. To delay the execution proceedings pending against the respondent No. 3, he also filed applications under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure for transferring the Execution Case No. 22 of 1981. With the consent of the parties, the execution case was transferred to the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Aligarh vide order dated 22.7.1991 wherein it was also directed that the Execution case No. 22 of 1981 along with the Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990 shall be disposed of within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the file. Thereafter, to further delay the proceedings the respondent No. 3 again filed a transfer application registered as Case No. 141 of 1992. The same was rejected on 23.10.1992. The respondent No. 3 then filed an Application No. 89C praying that the proceedings in Execution Case No. 22 of 1981 may be stayed. This application of the respondent No. 3 was rejected by the respondent No. 1 the Additional Judge, Small Causes Court vide his order dated 6.11.1992. Against this order, the respondent No. 3 Mahesh Chand filed yet another Writ Petition No. 40972 of 1992. This Court vide its judgment dated 27.9.1994 dismissed the writ petition, the relevant portion of which is quoted below : "After hearing the argument and going through the record, it transpires that the petitioner is playing the third inning by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The short facts leading to the petition are as under. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, who is a landlord has brought an action against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit premises. The same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. HOWEVER, the petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the order of the trial court on various grounds and ultimately filed a writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, who is a landlord has brought an action against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit premises. The same was decreed in favour of the petitioner. HOWEVER, the petitioner unsuccessfully assailed the order of the trial court on various grounds and ultimately filed a writ petition. That too was dismissed then similar attempts were made to file objections thereafter this third attempt has been made by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Since the matter in issue has already completely thrashed out by the trial court as well as twice by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, there nothing remains to be decided in this petition. This petition has no merit and it is therefore, dismissed. The stay order, if any, stands vacated." In 1994, when the aforesaid order was passed, this Court had then observed that the matter has already been thrashed out by the trial court as well as by this Court and as such, nothing remained to be decided. By the same order dated 6.11.1992, the execution court also directed the summoning of witnesses without there being any such prayer in the application of the respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging such dated 6.11.1992 and also with a further prayer for a direction to the respondent No. 1, the executing court, that the execution proceedings may be completed within 15 days. 7. I have heard Sri Sunil Kumar Gupta holding the brief of Sri S. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri V. K. Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent No. 3. 8. THE learned counsel for the parties have not disputed the narration of facts as given above. It is the glaring example of gross abuse of the process of law by the respondent No. 3 who is continuing to be in possession of the shop in dispute despite there being a decree against him which was passed on 6.3.1981 in Suit No. 113 of 1978. It is the glaring example of gross abuse of the process of law by the respondent No. 3 who is continuing to be in possession of the shop in dispute despite there being a decree against him which was passed on 6.3.1981 in Suit No. 113 of 1978. It is not denied that the revision against the decree was dismissed by the District Judge on 28.5.1981 as also the Writ Petition No. 7762 of 1981 filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 15.9.1981, wherein a direction was issued that the respondent No. 3 shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute till 30.6.1982 on the condition that he deposits the entire decretal amount by 15.11.1981. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 3 has, till date, not paid any money towards the decretal amount or any rent or damages thereafter to the petitioner for occupation of the said property in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Sri V. K. Agarwal stated during the course of arguments that his client would deposit whatever amount as may be directed by this Court. It is too late in the day to have now made any such request at the stage of hearing. THE same is again a ploy to gain time and defer the hearing of this writ petition, specially in the backdrop of the facts that more than two decades back on 15.9.1981 such a direction passed by this Court to deposit the decretal amount was not complied with by the said respondent. In the earlier Suit No. 36 of 1970, filed against the petitioner (in which the respondent No. 3 was also co-defendant) a specific finding of fact was recorded that the petitioner Nand Kishore Sharma was the son of Natthoo Ram and grandson of Shadi Lal. The issue No. 3 in the said suit was as under : "3. Whether the defendant No. 1 is the son of Natthoo Ram and grand son of Shadi Lal?" 9. IT is admitted that defendant No. 1 in that suit, is the petitioner herein i.e., Nand Kishore. While deciding the said issue No. 3, the Civil Judge, Aligarh, gave its finding, which reads as follows : "Thus, it is proved that the defendant No. 1 is the grandson of Shadi Lal and son of Natthoo Ram." 10. THE District Judge dismissed the appeal against the said judgment. While deciding the said issue No. 3, the Civil Judge, Aligarh, gave its finding, which reads as follows : "Thus, it is proved that the defendant No. 1 is the grandson of Shadi Lal and son of Natthoo Ram." 10. THE District Judge dismissed the appeal against the said judgment. This Court dismissed the second appeal on 28.11.1977. Thus, the question of the petitioner being son of Sri Chand cannot be raised now. THE said issue had become final after passing of the decree in Suit No. 36 of 1970. The present proceedings arise out of execution of decree passed in Suit No. 113 of 1978 filed by the petitioner for ejectment of the respondent No. 3. The petitioner, describing himself as son of Natthoo Ram, filed the said suit. In this Suit No. 113 of 1978, also an application was filed on 18.7.1980 raising this issue that the petitioner was not son of Natthoo Ram but of Sri Chand. It was only after the suit had been decreed and the revision as well as the writ petition challenging the said decree had been dismissed, that the respondent No. 3 again raised this issue afresh in the execution proceedings that the petitioner was not the son of Natthoo Ram. When the Execution Case No. 22 of 1981 was filed by the petitioner to get his decree for eviction executed, the respondent No. 3 has been raising some objections or the other or moving transfer applications time and again only to gain time. On the face of it, it is clear that these frivolous objections have been raised only to stall the execution proceedings pending since 1981. The respondent No. 3 has even approached this Court on quite a few occasions earlier and has not succeeded even once. In the judgment dated 27.9.1994 passed in Writ Petition No. 40974 of 1992, this Court had observed that similar attempts were made to file objections and dismissed the writ petition, observing that the issue had already been completely thrashed out by the trial court as well as twice by this Court. 11. IF a litigant is permitted to first linger on the trial of the case and then the execution of the decree for more than two decades, the common man will start losing faith in the judicial process. 11. IF a litigant is permitted to first linger on the trial of the case and then the execution of the decree for more than two decades, the common man will start losing faith in the judicial process. It is the duty of the Court to see that frivolous objections and devices innovated by a litigant to linger on and stall proceedings pending before a Court are not permitted. This is a fit case where this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, should issue directions to the respondent No. 3 to comply with the decree passed by the trial court and give possession of the property in dispute to the petitioner forthwith. The objections raised by the respondent No. 3 in Execution Case No. 22 of 1981, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990 cannot stand as the issue already stood decided in the earlier Suit No. 36 of 1970 wherein the respondent No. 3 was also a party. In the said case, a categorical finding of fact was recorded by the civil Judge that the petitioner Nand Kishore Sharma is the son of Natthoo Ram and grandson of Shadi Lal. As such, the question as to whether the petitioner is the owner of the property or not had been decided more than thirty years back by the judgment dated 4.9.1971 passed in Suit No. 36 of 1970. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court has the power and also a duty to see that speedy justice is provided to every citizen. In the present case, despite having won from every Court and a confirmed decree in his favour, the petitioner has been deprived of his lawful right of possession of the property owned by him. The respondent No. 3 has admittedly not paid any rent to the petitioner for the last more than two decades and is continuing to enjoy the possession of the property in dispute. 12. IN such circumstances of this case as narrated above, the order dated 6.11.1992, with regard to the summoning of witnesses, is set aside. Further the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the Execution Case No. 22 of 1981 and also the Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990, expeditiously. 12. IN such circumstances of this case as narrated above, the order dated 6.11.1992, with regard to the summoning of witnesses, is set aside. Further the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the Execution Case No. 22 of 1981 and also the Misc. Case No. 2 of 1990, expeditiously. The respondent No. 2 shall decide the cases in the light of the observations made above, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, preferably within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000 to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent No. 3.