JUDGMENT : Rajesh H. Shukla, J. 1. The present First Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Original Objectors-Applicants under Order 21 Rule 58 in Darkhast No. 232 of 2013 on the grounds mentioned in the Appeal. 2. Before referring to the merits of the matter, the background of the facts even in this matter are required to be noted that in spite of sufficient opportunity granted by way of indulgence, learned Advocate for the Appellants has not bothered to remain present nor the Applicants have taken steps to make the alternate arrangement. 3. On the last occasion, the following order was passed by this Bench on 9.3.2017: "In spite of the earlier order passed on 21.02.2017, today, when the matter is called out, no one remained present even to inform that learned advocate Shri Rami has filed leave note. However, in the interest of justice, the matter is adjourned to 14.03.2017 with clear understanding that on the next date of hearing, the matter shall be proceeded irrespective of leave, note or sick note." 4. Similarly, in this very matter, on 4.9.2015, the coordinate Bench (Coram: S.G. Shah, J.) has passed an order granting interim relief on condition to deposit 50% of the decretal amount. In spite of the aforesaid order and the leniency shown by the court, the High Court (Coram: S.G. Shah, J.) vide order dated 20.10.2015 passed the following order making it very clear that the interim relief is no longer in force: "It seems that appellants herein have failed to comply with the order dated 4.9.2015 so also order dated 7.10.2015. Therefore, the First Appeal is required to be decided on merits finally. For the purpose, both the sides are at liberty to file compilation of relevant documents. List the matter on 2.11.2015. It would be appropriate for the trial Court to accept the amount that may be deposited by the appellants since ultimately decree is for recovery of certain amount. It is made clear that thereby order dated 4.9.2015 is now not in force." 5. Now, even in the background of the facts and the chequerred history, it is also required to be considered and appreciate that the Appellants have abused and misused the court proceedings only to consume time and see that the fruits of litigation are not available to the Respondents though the decree is passed in their favour since years. 6. Now, even in the background of the facts and the chequerred history, it is also required to be considered and appreciate that the Appellants have abused and misused the court proceedings only to consume time and see that the fruits of litigation are not available to the Respondents though the decree is passed in their favour since years. 6. The Appellants, who are obstructionists had filed an application before the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad below Exh.34 in Execution Petition No. 232 of 2003 which came to be rejected vide order dated 22.2.2013 by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. The Respondent is the judgment creditor and the obstruction was sought to be filed claiming that they are the owners of the property being Flat No. 5, Dhanraj Apartment, Pushpakunj Society, Kankaria, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. The City Civil and Sessions Court, after considering the same, rejected the aforesaid application Exh.34 in Execution Petition No. 232/2003. The same was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 3389 of 2013 which was dismissed by the High Court (Coram: G.B. Shah, J.) vide order dated 22.3.2013. In spite of that, First Appeal No. 3353 of 2013 with Civil Application No. 12416 of 2013 came to be filed and the High Court (Coram: S.G. Shah, J.) vide CAV judgment dated 20.1.2014 passed the order with directions and allowing the matter to be remanded back to the trial court to provide an opportunity to the present Appellants/ Applicants. The same also came to be decided in Execution Petition No. 232 of 2003 afresh by the City Civil and Sessions Court vide order dated 29.7.2015 and the rights of the objectors were considered and it has been observed inter-alia that such litigation is pursued only to stall the execution to consume time so that the fruits of litigation are not enjoyed by the decree holder. In paragraph 8 of the said order below Exh.34 dated 29.7.2015 passed by the City Civil and Sessions Court it is observed as follows: "Now on perusal of materials which are brought on record, it appears that there is a custom and practice prevalent regarding divorce in Lohana community and therefore, that submission can be accepted by this Court. Now, so far as document of dissolution of marriage is concerned, it appears that it is a got up one to overcome the fruit of the decree. Now, so far as document of dissolution of marriage is concerned, it appears that it is a got up one to overcome the fruit of the decree. It is also found that the document executed after passing of the decree by the court. Not only that in the original document which brought on record on page No. 2, there are over-writings to the age of minor Jaymin and Gopiben. There is no name of the person mentioned who intervened to settle the grievance between the parents and objectors. It is also pertinent to note that in the very document, the name of the witness is not mentioned and second person has not put his signature and interested person only has put the signature and therefore, there is reason to believe that the document executed between Kamlesh Tukaram Chikhlikar and his wife is got up one. It also appears from the xerox copy of the document produced at Exh.36, at page No. 2, the age of Jaymin appears to be mentioned as 22 years and Gopiben as of 14 years and after the production of that very document on 23.12.2011, it appears that the objector Jaymin or another made trick to misguide the court and it came to the notice of the Court while writing the order. The Court may take serious view against the said Jaymin who deliberately attempted to misguide the court and adopted such practice in order to delay the matter. It also appears that the learned advocate appears for the objectors applied for adjournments for several times and sometime she submitted an application Exh.78 stating that his client was arrested by Delhi Police and the Court granted time subject to undertaking given by learned advocate Mrs. Sushila Rami for third parties to place the proof of arrest, but she did not produce such proof and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the objections which are made by the objectors are not tenable." In spite of that, the present Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants on the same ground, and as stated above, the High Court (Coram: S.G. Shah, J.) while passing the order dated 4.9.2015 granted indulgence on condition of depositing an amount which has not been fulfilled. 7. 7. It, therefore, appears that learned Advocate has also therefore not remained present, and unnecessary the adjournments have been sought, and in spite of repeated requests and reminders, the approach is casual and indifferent. Therefore, as the other side represented by learned Senior Counsel Shri Mehul S. Shah appearing with learned Advocate Shri Paresh M. Darji for the Appellants have requested for taking up the matter, it has been taken up. It is in this background as stated above, as there is no substance which can be said to have been made out in the present Appeal challenging the impugned order passed below Exh.34 by the City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad, the present First Appeal cannot be entertained and deserve to be dismissed. 8. Though this court is conscious about the fact that it is a First Appeal, however, while deciding the First Appeal as stated above, the court would be justified in considering the grievance made by the other side and the merits of the matters are required to be examined which have been considered as stated above. 9. Therefore, as this First Appeal is filed only as and by way of abuse of process of court only to consume time one after the other litigation, it cannot be allowed to remain pending to subvert the proceedings of the court and to take shelter behind such pending proceedings. Therefore, the present First Appeal stands dismissed. 10. As the First Appeal is dismissed, the Civil Application accordingly stands disposed of. Notice is discharged. Ad interim relief stands vacated. Appeal Dismissed.