JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels for the appellants, Mr. S.L. Jain for about half an hour and learned counsel for respondent-caveator, Mr. Manish Shishodia. 2. Admit. Notices need not be issued to the respondent decree-holders, as they are duly served and are represented by Mr. Manish Shishodia. 3. Heard for interim relief. 4. A detailed reply has been filed to the stay petition by the respondents- Caveator, to which a rejoinder has also been filed by way of an additional affidavit of Pratip Swami S/o Bajrang Lal, who appeared in person before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.1 1.2012 on account of suspension of work by the Lawyers and while hearing the said appellant No. 1/2 in person, the co- ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the further proceedings in Civil Execution Case No. 17/2005 till 3.12.2012. The matter, after 2-3 adjournments in between was heard today for interim relief by this Court at length. 5. Both the learned counsels vehemently argued their respective case for interim relief. Mr. S.L. Jain and Mr. N.L. Joshi appearing for the appellants/ objectors pray for interim relief of staying the execution proceedings and Mr. Manish Shishodia and Mr. Sunil Ranwah vehemently opposed the same as this case involves a long and chequered history of litigation, which has so far ended in favour of the respondent decree-holders from trial Court to Supreme Court of India. 6. The appellants-objectors have travelled up to this Court and the Supreme Court in various litigations and have not succeeded so far. Admittedly, they do not have any title over the suit premises, a land over which they are running a school. 7. This Court in contempt jurisdiction had also passed a series of orders against the present objectors deprecating their continued possession and directed the Executing Court to execute the decree forthwith. Apart from it, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also rejected their prayer for grant of interim relief, it would be relevant to quote the order dated 18.8.2006 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 13107/2006, Bajranglal Swami v. Shiv Bhagwan & Ors .: "Application for exemption from filing O.T. is allowed. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Mr. D.N. Mishra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 9 and prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file vacalatnama and counter affidavit. Issue notice returnable within six weeks. Mr. D.N. Mishra, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 9 and prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to file vacalatnama and counter affidavit. Rejoinder Affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. Prayer for grant of interim relief is rejected." 8. Though the prayer for interim relief was rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appellants still filed an another interim application in Civil Appeal No. 5614/2008, Bajranglal Swami (dead) By LR's v. Gauri Shankar & Ors., which also came to be disposed of the Apex Court on 17.8.2012 in the following terms: "This tin-numbered interlocutory application has been filed in Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2008, by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant, Bajranglal Swami, inter alia, praying for stay of order dated 3.7.2006, passed by the jodhpur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. It may be indicated that when the appeal was entertained, interim prayers of similar nature had been refused. Thereafter, the decree which had been obtained by the respondent herein, was put into execution, but on account of various proceedings taken, the same could not be executed. While the appeal was pending, certain other proceedings were taken by the appellant and in one of the proceedings, which has been brought to our notice, namely, S.S. Civil Misc. Petition No. 6072 of 2012, the High Court directed the trial Court to execute the decree within a week from the date of the order, with police help, if necessary, and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the decree- holders forthwith. Apart from the above, yet another order passed by the High Court in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 7 of 2010 on 24.7.2012 was also brought to our notice by Mr. Pallav Shisodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, wherein directions had been given to the Executing Court to hear and dispose of the execution petition on or before 6.8.2012. As far as order dated 13.8.2012 is concerned, the same appears to have been passed without the order of 27.7.2012, having been brought to the Court's notice. In our view, the said order of 24.7.2012 is the correct procedure adopted by the Court for disposing of the execution proceeding and making over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents concerned. In our view, the said order of 24.7.2012 is the correct procedure adopted by the Court for disposing of the execution proceeding and making over vacant possession of the premises to the respondents concerned. Accordingly, in supersession of the various orders, which have been passed, we direct, the Executing Court to hear out Civil Suit No. 10 of 2008, arising out of execution of the decree dated 1.2.2012, pending before the Additional District judge, Churu, Rajasthan, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of communication of this order. As far as Civil Appeal No. 5614 of 2008, is concerned, let the same be taken up separately for final disposal. Till the executing proceedings are finally disposed of, the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the suit premises. The interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly." 9. The objections of the appellants-objectors, therefore, finally came to be rejected by a detailed 29 pages order by the learned District Judge, Churu rejecting all the objections raised by the present appellants including the purported doubt raised about the Patta originally issued in favour of the respondent decree-holders for which they also got compensation upon compulsory land acquisition. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.L. Jain also submitted that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the present respondent-plaintiff-decree holders also and accordingly a Criminal Case No. 563/2007, Shri Ganga Singh Shekhawat v. Satya Narayan & Ors. , is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chuni, however, the proceedings thereof have been stayed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1361/2007, Satya Narayan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., on 12.12.2007 and the same is still pending. The arguments now raised before this Court are about the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which is already a subject matter of revision petition still pending before this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.L. Jain, therefore, prayed that during the pendency of the present appeal, status quo with respect of the suit property as it exists today should be maintained. 12. This prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent- decree holder, Mr. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.L. Jain, therefore, prayed that during the pendency of the present appeal, status quo with respect of the suit property as it exists today should be maintained. 12. This prayer is vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent- decree holder, Mr. Manish Shishodia, who pointed out the long chequered history along with the reply to the writ petition running into 260 pages along with the documents and submitted that the appeal of the appellant/objectors is a frivolous one and their objections have rightly been rejected by the learned Executing Court of District Judge, Churu and the decree has not been executed so far due to long hard fought legal battle in which decree holders have succeeded at all forums. 13. Considering the submission made at the bar and in view of the facts narrated above and chequered history of the case this Court finds not even a semblance of justification for granting any interim relief to the present appellants/objectors and the decree in question deserves to be executed forthwith as directed by Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court on earlier occasions and directions even made in contempt jurisdiction. 14. The stay application filed by the appellants/objectors is, therefore, liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. A copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court below for needful.Stay petition dismissed. *******