JUDGMENT

Kasliwal, J.

1. Civil Appeal Nos. 491-92 of 1980, Civil Appeal Nos. 783-784 of 1981 and Civil Appeal Nos. 10 I 02-05 of 1983 were tagged to be heard along with the above appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties in all these cases, judgment was reserved. Learned counsel for the appellants in C.A. No. 492 of 1980 and C.A. Nos. 10103 and 10105 of 1983 informed that the matter had been compromised between the parties out of Court and as such these appeals were disposed of by an order dated August 4, 1992. After going through the record of the above appeal, we are convinced that its facts are so glaring and different that it can be dealt with separately and as such we are deciding this appeal on its own facts.

2. The High Court itself in the opening part of the impugned order has observed as under:

"This case illustrates how very resourceful a judgment-debtor could be and ingenuously set at naught the valid orders of court, including a compromise decree. Undaunted by the adverse judgments right from 1963, the judgment-debtor has been making repeated onslaughts under the umbrage of some technical plea or other and thereby has been preventing the decree-holder from r