JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha, J. 1. Heard on the question of admission and stay. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Civil Judge Class-I, Betul, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, 1908 has been dismissed. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the application could not have been dismissed at the first stage after hearing as the executing court was bound to frame issue and adduce evidence and decide the proceedings like a regular civil suit in view of the objections raised by the petitioner. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, it is observed that the decree holder respondent No. 2 had filed a suit for eviction against the respondent No. 4 husband of the petitioner, which was decreed by the trial court and the matter travelled up to this court on the behest of the petitioner's husband in S.A. No. 135/2010 which was ultimately heard and dismissed by this court on 29.07.2013. 5. From a perusal of the judgment of this court in S.A. No. 135/2010, it is clear that after dismissing the appeal on merits on account of the request made by respondent No. 4, the following order granting four months' time to vacate the premises was passed:- "(9). At this stage learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he be granted some time to vacate the accommodation in question. (10). In view of aforesaid submission, it is directed that:- (a). the appellant shall furnish an undertaking within a period of four weeks from today before the trial court that he shall handover the possession to the respondent in a peaceful manner on or before 31st December, 2013 and shall not create any third party interest. In case such an undertaking is furnished, the appellant shall be permitted to occupy the accommodation up to 31st December, 2013. (b). That the appellant shall deposit the entire arrears of rent within a period of one month from today and shall continue to comply with the provisions under section 13(1) of the Act during the period for which the accommodation remains in his possession. (c). In case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid directions, the decree of eviction shall become executable forthwith." 6. (c). In case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid directions, the decree of eviction shall become executable forthwith." 6. It is further evident that inspite of having prayed for time to vacate the premises, the respondent No. 4 thereafter filed review petition which was registered as R.P. No. 706/2013 and was dismissed on 09.10.2013. The respondent No. 4 thereafter filed a writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 20178/2013 being aggrieved by rejection of the application under Order 9 Rule 7 read with order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908 in the execution proceedings. This petition was also dismissed by this Court on 21.11.2013 and the respondent No. 4 was granted liberty to vacate the premises by 31.12.2013. 7. It is further clear that the respondent No. 4 thereafter filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. CC1075-1076/2014 before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 31.01.2014 and while doing so, on giving undertaking, he was permitted to vacate the premises by the end of July, 2014. 8. After all these proceedings in which the respondent No. 4/petitioner's husband failed in his attempts to avoid execution, the petitioner filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC, 1908 before the Executing Court alleging that her husband has left her long back and it was the petitioner who was the actual tenant and therefore, the judgment and decree passed against them by the Trial Court, Appellate Court, High Court and the Supreme Court were not binding upon her. This application has been dismissed by the Executing Court by order dated 12.01.2015. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the present petition. 9. The factual background, as stated above, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application relying upon the decisions rendered by this Court in : AIR 1984 Rajasthan 94 Shreedevi Vs. Kashiram and Others 2009 (1) MPWN 79 , Sanjeev Paliwal Vs. 9. The factual background, as stated above, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application relying upon the decisions rendered by this Court in : AIR 1984 Rajasthan 94 Shreedevi Vs. Kashiram and Others 2009 (1) MPWN 79 , Sanjeev Paliwal Vs. Sumitra and Others 2010 (1) MPWN 19 and other decisions by stating that the present application was nothing but an abuse and misuse of the process of law inasmuch as the petitioner did not, at any point of time, during the eviction proceedings before Trial Court, Appellate Court, High Court and Supreme Court or in the present execution proceedings which had actually been initiated against the respondent No. 4, raise any objections or bring on record or contend that she was the actual tenant and not her husband and it was the first time that she has done so after all other attempts have failed. It is also clear that the stand taken by the petitioner to the effect that she had acquired the title of the accommodation on account of a will executed by the original owner is also an afterthought inasmuch as the defence of the respondent No. 4 in the suit or before this Court in second appeal was that her husband had infact got an agreement to sale executed in his favour from one of the owners, and at no point of time either of them ever stated before this Court or the executing court that there was a will in favour of the petitioner, on the strength of which they claimed title although the will is alleged to be of the year 1990. It is also noteworthy that the petitioner did not ever disclosed the will now did see get her name recorded as owner on its strength in the nazul records. On the contrary Chitralekha, respondent No. 1 daughter of Kusum Bai the alleged executor of the will got her name recorded in the revenue records after the death of Kusum Bai on 23.12.1997. 10. On the contrary Chitralekha, respondent No. 1 daughter of Kusum Bai the alleged executor of the will got her name recorded in the revenue records after the death of Kusum Bai on 23.12.1997. 10. From a perusal of the judgment of this court in second appeal and the order passed in the review petition, it is clear that the stand taken before the Courts by the petitioner's husband was that they had become the owner of the property on account of an agreement to sale which fact was clearly negatived by the courts. Even in the writ petition filed before this court against the previous order passed by the executing court W.P. No. 20178/2013 the petitioner did not taken up any such defence against execution and it is for the first time that the petitioner, who is the wife of the respondent No. 4 and not a stranger to the proceedings or a third party, has raised this issue. 11. In the circumstances it is clear that the present proceedings initiated by the petitioner after giving the undertaking before this Court as well as the Supreme Court amounts to abuse and misuse of process of law and have been taken up only to nullify the judgment and decree of the Courts and to avoid eviction as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Gayatri Devi and Others Vs. Shashi Pal Singh : (2005) 5 SCC 527 . 12. In the circumstances, I do not find any merits or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 13. It is ordered that executing court shall take steps to ensure that the judgment and decree of this Court and the undertaking given by the respondent No. 4 before the Supreme Court is enforced forthwith in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.