JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sharvesh Kumar Pandey holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Khare, learned counsel for the objector/appellants and Sri. Vinod Singh, learned counsel for decree holder/respondent No.1. 2. Learned counsel for the objector/appellants submits as under :- (i) Execution Application being Execution Case No.1 of 2012 was not maintainable since there was no decree for eviction of the objector-appellants herein. (ii) Appellants are occupying the disputed portion of the house since their birth. (iii) Appellants have inherited the property as a Joint Hindu Property, as they are grand children of Shobha Singh who has three sons, namely, Virendra Singh, Amit Singh and Anil Kumar Singh. The appellants are son and daughter of Amit Singh. (iv) A suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No.136 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others) was filed in which a compromise decree was passed on 28.08.2003 whereby each son of Shobha Singh, namely, Virendra Singh, Amit Singh and Anil Kumar Singh (Adopted son) each were given 1/3rd share. At the time of aforesaid decree the appellants were minor. They were not party to the compromise decree. Therefore, they lawfully filed objection in Execution Case No.1 of 2012 under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 C.P.C. but court below has arbitrarily rejected it. 3. Sri Vinod Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order. He submits that firstly, father of the appellants filed various applications/objections and after being unsuccessful he had set up his wife and when she also became unsuccessful then he has set up his son and daughter, who are appellants herein. He referred to order dated 25.09.2012 in Writ-C No.48402 of 2012 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others), order dated 13.01.2014 in Writ-C No.811 of 2014 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and 3 others) and order dated 11.08.2016 in First Appeal No.739 of 2013 (Smt. Pooja Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh and 4 others). 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this appeal is being finally heard. FACTS 5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellants have objected to the execution of the decree of the disputed house situate at Rajendra Nagar, Kasba Orai, District Jalaun. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and with their consent this appeal is being finally heard. FACTS 5. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellants have objected to the execution of the decree of the disputed house situate at Rajendra Nagar, Kasba Orai, District Jalaun. The land of this house was purchased by the grand father of the appellants, namely, Sri Shobha Singh son of Mukund Singh by registered sale deed dated 12.04.1944. In the year 1975 he took loan of Rs.40,000/-from Orai Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti 470, Rajendra Nagar, Orai, for construction of the house over the aforesaid land purchased by him. He repaid the housing loan taken by him. The aforesaid Shobha Singh had huge immovable properties. He had three sons, namely, Anil Kumar Singh, Virendra Kumar Singh, and Amit Kumar Singh. His aforesaid son, Anil Kumar Singh filed injunction suit being O.S. No.136 of 2000 (Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh, Smt. Shushila Devi wife of Shobha Singh, Virendra Kumar Singh and Amit Kumar Singh) for permanent injunction with respect to the disputed house. In the said suit, a compromise dated 11.08.2003 signed by all the parties to the suit was jointly filed and after verification the compromise was accepted by the Court on 13.08.2003 and the decree dated 28.08.2003 was passed in terms of the compromise. 6. Thereafter Shobha Singh filed an Execution Case No.61 of 2008 (Shobha Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Singh) for execution of the decree. In the execution case, Amit Kumar Singh filed an objection to the application 31-Ga 2 dated 21.05.2012 (Annexure No.7 to the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.811 of 2014) Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others and in paragraph 2 thereof he stated that ^^‘kksHkk flag us fookfnr edku dks _.k ysdj fuekZ.k djk;k Fkk ftlds fy, fjdojh gsrq dk;Zokgh dh x;h gS] vkSj ‘kksHkk flag us fookfnr edku dh uhykeh ls cpus gsrq o _.k olwyh dh dk;Zokgh gksus ikus gsrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa fjV la[;k 44622 lu~ 2009 ‘kksHkk flag cuke LVsV vkQ ;w0ih0 vkfn ÁLrqr dh gS tks fopkjk/khu gSA** 7. It appears that prior to the said objection, the father of the appellants herein, namely, Amit Kumar Singh filed a Misc. It appears that prior to the said objection, the father of the appellants herein, namely, Amit Kumar Singh filed a Misc. Case No.1 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. for setting aside the compromise decree dated 13.08.2003/28.08.2003 on the ground that although Anil Kumar Singh is the natural son of Shobha Singh but he was adopted by Ranbir Singh and therefore, Anil Kumar Singh had no right in the property of Shobha Singh. This application being Misc. Case No.01 of 2009 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others) was rejected by the court of Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai by order dated 27.08.2012. Against that order, father of the appellants herein, namely, Sri Amit Kumar Singh filed Writ-C No.48402 of 2012 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 25.09.2012, as under: “Challenging the said order only submission advanced is that at the time of passing of the compromise decree petitioner had no knowledge that respondent no. 2 was given in adoption. The compromise is not disputed. It has been signed by the petitioner. A decree on the basis of the compromise has been passed in his presence and upon hearing the petitioner. Therefore, the said order decreeing the suit no. 136 of 2000 on the basis of compromise can not be recalled.” 8. Thereafter, the aforesaid Amit Kumar Singh (father of the appellants herein) filed another Misc. Case No.2 of 2009 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others) under Section 47 C.P.C. This Misc. Case No.2 of 2009 was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai by order dated 19.03.2013. He again filed an Misc. Case No.10 of 2003 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and others) under Section 47 C.P.C. which was rejected by the court of Additional District Judge, Orai by order dated 24.05.2013. He again filed an application 25-Ga 2 in the aforesaid Misc. Case No.10 of 2003 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh) which was rejected by the court of Additional District Judge, Orai by order dated 06.07.2013. Again an application 3-Ga 2 was filed by the aforesaid Amit Kumar Singh which was rejected by the court below by order dated 30.09.2013. He again filed an application 25-Ga 2 in the aforesaid Misc. Case No.10 of 2003 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh) which was rejected by the court of Additional District Judge, Orai by order dated 06.07.2013. Again an application 3-Ga 2 was filed by the aforesaid Amit Kumar Singh which was rejected by the court below by order dated 30.09.2013. In the mean time, another son of Shobha Singh, namely, Virendra Kumar Singh filed an Execution Case No.01 of 2012 in which Amit Kumar Singh, the father of the appellants herein, filed an application 27-Ga 2 which was rejected by the court below by order dated 21.10.2013. All these orders were challenged by Amit Kumar Singh, the father of the appellants herein in Writ Petition No.811 of 2014 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 13.01.2014. 9. After the father of the appellants herein, namely, Amit Kumar Singh could not succeed to obstruct the execution of the decree passed in O.S. No.136 of 2000, then his wife Smt. Pooja Singh (mother of the appellants herein) as a third party filed an application 21-Ka in Execution Case No.1 of 2012 which was rejected by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Jalaun at Orai by order dated 13.09.2013 observing that the application is abuse of process of Court. Against this order, the mother of the appellants herein, namely, Smt. Pooja Singh filed First Appeal No.739 of 2013 in which a counter affidavit dated 15.02.2014 was filed by grand father of the appellants herein, namely, Sri Shobha Singh. In the counter affidavit Shobha Singh denied every allegations made by the mother of the appellants herein. Shobha Singh mentioned in paragraph 20 of his counter affidavit that mother of the appellants Smt. Pooja Singh has also filed an injunction suit in O.S. No.257 of 2013 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalaun at Orai in which 7-C application has been rejected by a detailed order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division). The aforesaid First Appeal No.739 of 2013 was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 11.08.2016. 10. Thus, after the mother and the father of the appellants herein, namely, Amit Kumar Singh and Smt. Pooja Singh were unsuccessful to obstruct the execution of decree passed in August, 2003, then they have set up their son and daughter (appellants herein) who filed a Misc. 10. Thus, after the mother and the father of the appellants herein, namely, Amit Kumar Singh and Smt. Pooja Singh were unsuccessful to obstruct the execution of decree passed in August, 2003, then they have set up their son and daughter (appellants herein) who filed a Misc. Case No.58 of 2017 (Km. Aishwarya Singh and another Vs. Virendra Singh and others) under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 C.P.C. objecting the execution of decree of O.S. No.136 of 2000. The application No.20-Ga 2 and 3-Ka 1 filed by the appellants herein mainly on the ground that they being co-parcener have a right in the disputed property and therefore, the decree cannot be executed against them were rejected by the court of Additional District Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun at Orai by two separate orders both dated 26.02.2018. Aggrieved with these orders dated 26.02.2018, the appellants herein have filed the present appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. 11. Facts of the case as briefly noted above leaves no manner of doubt that as per own case and also as established by documentary evidences on record, the grand father of the appellants herein, namely, Shobha Singh purchased the land of the disputed house by registered sale deed on 02.04.1944 and he got constructed the disputed house in the year 1975 by taking loan from Orai Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Rajendra Nagar, Orai. He subsequently defaulted in repayment of housing loan, resulting in recovery proceedings against him which was challenged by him in Writ Petition No.44622 of 2019. It was admitted by the father of the appellants herein in his objection to the application 31-Ga 2 in Execution Case No.61 of 2008, Annexure No.7 to the Writ Petition No.811 of 2014 (Amit Kumar Singh Vs. Shobha Singh and another). Thus, the disputed property is the self acquired property of Shobha Singh which is subject matter of the compromise decree dated 25.08.2003 in O.S. No.136 of 2000. 12. The facts of the case as noted above clearly establish gross abuse of process of Court by Amit Kumar Singh, his wife Pooja Singh and now by their son and daughter who are appellants herein. 12. The facts of the case as noted above clearly establish gross abuse of process of Court by Amit Kumar Singh, his wife Pooja Singh and now by their son and daughter who are appellants herein. In the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 the court below while rejecting the application of the appellants herein, briefly discussed the facts and lawfully recorded a finding of abuse of process of Court by the appellants by moving the application 3-Ka 1 malafidely under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 C.P.C. so as to frustrate the execution of decree which has been rejected by the impugned order. 13. In the light of the facts of the case as briefly discussed above, I do not find any infirmity or perversity in findings recorded by the court below in the impugned order. The abuse of process of Court by the appellants is well evident on record. Therefore, exemplary cost is necessary to be imposed on the appellants herein for filing this frivolous appeal and abusing the process of Court, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666 (para 14) and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik Vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar (2017) 5 SCC 496 (paras 9 to 14). 14. In Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forum of the law to defeat or delay justice. Hon'ble Supreme Court commended all courts to deal with frivolous filings, firmly and impose exemplary costs. 15. The principles laid down in the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), have been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Co-op. L&C Federation Ltd. vs. Unique Co-op. L&C Co-op. Society Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 248 (Paras 16 & 17) while dismissing the appeal of the Haryana State Coop. L&C Federation Ltd. (supra) with exemplary cost of Rs.5 lacs. 16. In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that imposition of exemplary costs should be in real terms and not merely symbolic. 17. Society Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 248 (Paras 16 & 17) while dismissing the appeal of the Haryana State Coop. L&C Federation Ltd. (supra) with exemplary cost of Rs.5 lacs. 16. In the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised that imposition of exemplary costs should be in real terms and not merely symbolic. 17. Facts of the case and the findings recorded in paras 5 to 13 above leave no manner of doubt that the process of Court has been grossly abused by the appellants. This Court must view with disfavour the attempt of litigants to abuse judicial process and must deal with them firmly otherwise sanctity of judicial process shall be seriously eroded. In such cases consequences must follow so that unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate may not misuse the process of dispensing justice. The tendency of repeated attempt to revive a stale issue, needs to be curbed by Courts firmly by imposing real time costs. It is necessary to do so, so that on one hand access to Courts may be available to people with genuine grievances and on the other hand frivolous and groundless filing of cases constituting serious menace to the administration of justice and consuming precious time of Court and clogging the infrastructure, may be discouraged and productive resources may be deployed in handling genuine cases. 18. For all the reasons aforestated, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. 19. The cost shall be deposited by the appellants with the court below within two months and on deposit the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall be entitled to withdraw it in equal proportion.