A suit for recovery of Rs.60,000 was filed by Maya Devi (original plaintiff/decree holder, now deceased through LRs) against Hans Raj (original defendant/judgment debtor, now deceased), which was decreed in her favor with costs by the Trial Court on 25th October 1976. (!) [1000487740001] In execution, the property SCF No.9, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh was attached and sold in public auction on 17th April 1978 for Rs.82,000 to the decree holder, who was permitted to bid.[legal_document] (!) [1000487740001][1000487740002]

The judgment debtor filed objections to the auction's legality.[1000487740001] While pending, parties entered a written compromise on 16th June 1979, under which the decree holder would deposit Rs.35,000 for the judgment debtor, who would then deliver vacant possession of the property. (!) [1000487740001][1000487740002] The Executing Court confirmed the sale in the decree holder's favor per the compromise on 30th August 1979. (!) [1000487740002][1000487740003] (!)

The judgment debtor's appeal (FAO No.502/1979) to the High Court failed, as did a Letters Patent Appeal (dismissed 18th November 1981), and a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court (dismissed in limine on 5th January 1982), finalizing the sale's validity. (!) [1000487740002][1000487740007]

Subsequently, the judgment debtor raised fresh objections claiming the property (alleged residential) was exempt from attachment/sale under a simple money decree. The Executing Court rejected these on 25th September 1984 (after restoring execution proceedings), holding the sale confirmation and sale certificate valid, and issued possession warrants. (!) [1000487740003][1000487740008]

Delivery of possession was resisted (third time) by the judgment debtor, claiming no possession decree. On 5th October 1987, the Executing Court rejected objections, noting prior final orders (30.08.1979 and 25.09.1984) had decided the issues against him, and the decree holder's Order XXI Rule 97 application (filed 22.01.1985) was timely. (!) [1000487740004][1000487740009] (!)

This 1987 order was challenged in Execution First Appeal (dismissed by Single Judge on 26th September 1988) and Letters Patent Appeal (No.167/1989, dismissed 5th October 2001). (!) [1000487740004][1000487740010]

The appellants (judgment debtor's LRs) filed the present Civil Appeal No.10249/2003 by special leave against the Division Bench's dismissal. The Supreme Court (Justices Markandey Katju & T.S. Thakur) held no infirmity, as issues were conclusively decided in prior final orders; rejected re-agitation of settled matters (e.g., sale validity, decree nature); upheld non-remand despite Single Judge's brief order due to prolonged litigation (34 years by 2010); and dismissed the appeal without costs on 08.09.2010.[legal_document] (!) [1000487740005][1000487740007][1000487740008][1000487740010][1000487740016][1000487740017]