Judgment Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. 1. The Plaintiff is the petitioner before this Court. The contesting defendants, who were petitioners in the miscellaneous case, instituted on basis of their application under Order 21, Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code, are represented through Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned Senior Counsel. Heard both the parties. 2. This is against one of those illustrative cases where how using judicial process and ingenuity, the entire judicial system is being brought to ridicule. The facts will show that. 3. A partition suit was instituted which appears to have been then compromised. There were three groups in it. As per the compromise entered into between the parties, each group was allotted property as mentioned in their respective schedule. Group I was allotted properties in Schedule I, Group II was allotted properties in Schedule II, Group III was allotted properties in Schedule III of the said compromise. On basis of the aforesaid compromise, final decree was passed regarding the said compromise. The compromise was unsuccessfully challenged in the first appellate Court but challenge by Group III in the second appellate Court (before this Court) succeeded. The matter then went to the Apex Court which reversed the judgment of the second appellate Court (this Court) and restored the judgment of first appellate Court. Thus, the effect was that members of Group III, who were occupying part of property allotted to Group II, were now liable to vacate failing which the consequences as per the compromise decree was to take effect. It may be noticed that the Apex Court delivered the judgment on the 4th of February, 2003. Thus; in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, it became incumbent upon Group III to vacate the premises occupied by them and allotted to Group II. It is clear that they had no such intentions. Immediately thereafter on 25th of April, 2003, Pradeep Kumar and Rakesh Kumar being sons of shri Mahendra Singh, who were all parties to Group Hi and bound by the judgment and decree, filed miscellaneous case No. 7 of 2003 before the learned sub Judge III, Patna. A copy of the said miscellaneous application purporting to be an application under Order 21, Rule 97 was produced in the Court and perused by me. A copy of the said miscellaneous application purporting to be an application under Order 21, Rule 97 was produced in the Court and perused by me. On this being filed, the said miscellaneous case No. 7 of 2003 was registered with reference to Execution Case No. 4 of 1995. The said miscellaneous application under Order 21, Rule 97 is nothing but a challenge to the decree as granted and affirmed by the Apex Court. There is not a whisper as to any confusion in execution proceedings. It alleges paragraph after paragraph that the Trial Court should not have accepted the compromise, should not have acted upon the compromise. All those pleadings were available to the party right from the beginning upto Apex Court but were never taken. The prayer of the said miscellaneous case is "It is, therefore, prayed that Your Honour may be pleased to adjudicate the right, title and interest in and possession of the petitioners over the premises under execution and the execution case be dismissed with cost". This miscellaneous case has now remained pending for over three years. Thus, a judgment and decree in favour of the petitioner of the year, 1978, as ultimately affirmed by the Apex Court, still remains to be implemented. Judgment and orders passed, after hearing the parties and affirmed upto the Apex Court, is put in suspended animation on this frivolous miscellaneous application. What is more regrettable is that this miscellaneous application is not disposed of forthwith rather when the petitioner, who is the decree-holder, moves for implementation and execution of the judgment of the Apex Court, he is told that miscellaneous application/miscellaneous case No. 7 of 2003 being pending, there cannot be any execution. I have pointed out that the ground, as taken in the miscellaneous application, is nothing but a challenge to a decree by the same party all over again even after its affirmance by the Apex Court. There cannot be anything more shocking. On the face of the pleadings, as made in the miscellaneous case, the Trial Court should have rejected the same forthwith instead ft entertained and stayed the very execution of the judgment and order as affirmed by the Apex Court. It is not a case in which the parties are third parties not covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. It is not a case in which the parties are third parties not covered by the judgment of the Apex Court. It is not a case that they were not heard by the Apex Court. They have been fully represented right-through. The contention raised in the miscellaneous case are devoid of any merit and made only with the sole purpose to frustrate the judgment and decree if not linger its implementation as long as it possible. Regrettably, the Trial Court, where the miscellaneous case is pending, played into the hands of those unscrupulous litigants. 4. I, accordingly, direct the learned Sub-Judge III to take up the miscellaneous case and finally dispose it of within a period of two weeks from today and direct the Executing Court thereafter to execute the judgment and decree in favour of petitioners forthwith. With this observation, this application is disposed of.