ORDER :

The chequered history of this case prompts this Court to reproduce with agony, what the judicial committee of the Privy Council, a century & half ago had ridiculed the judicial process in India, in the case of THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE RAJ DURBHANGA VS. MAHARAJAH COOMAR RAMAPUT SINGH IN MOORE’S INDIAN APPEALS (1871-72), VOL.14, PAGE 605=17 W.R.459; the said ridiculed was phrased as under:

“These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr.Doyne, and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a Decree…”

2. The petitioner being the judgment debtor in Execution Petition No.2/1993 is laying the challenge to the order dated 05.02.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-A, operative portion of which, reads as under:

“The I.As’ filed by the decree holder of L.R. No.1’s and decree holders No.3 to 10 under Order 6 Rule 17 r/w. Sections 151 &n 153 of C.P.C. are hereby allowed with cost of Rs.1,000/-and permitted to make the proposed amendment.

For amendment and amended petition by 18.02.2019.”

After service of notice, respondent-decree holders having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the writ petition.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(a) the predecessors of the parties herein were the plaintiffs and the respondents in a suit for a decree of redemption of mortgage; the said suit in O.S.No.74/1975 was decreed on 13.12.1976 and preliminary decree for redemption of mortgage was granted; the challenge to the said decree firstly in R.A.No.26/1997 & secondly in R.S.A.No.551/78 came to be negatived, and thus the decree has attained finality there being no further challenge;

(b) execution No.2/1993 having been dismissed on 15.09.2003 on the ground that the decree holder had not obtained the final decree, the same came to be set aside by this Court on 26.09.2003 in C.R.P.No.2929/2003 with a heavy cost of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty thousand) only and with a direction to the Executing Court to accomplish the executing proceedings within six months; the suit attained finality there being no further challenge;

(c) petitioners decree holders FDP No.1/2004 was dismissed on 22.06.2005 on the ground of limitation during the pendency of above CRP and therefore, another CRP No.544/2005 was filed, which came to be allowed by this Court on 07.12.2010; the Review Petition No.1001/2012 filed by the JDRs’ seeking review of order in CRP No.2929/2003 too was dismissed; and,

(d) the executing court vide order dated 05.08.2015 allowed impleadment of the LRs of the deceased-decree holder and later the Execution Petition was permitted to be amended vide impugned order dated 05.02.2019 by incorporating the prayer “I. to order the judgment debtor to reconvey the mortgage property to the decree holder at his costs free from the mortgage”. This is put in challenge in its jurisdiction.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is of considered opinion that the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost for the following reasons:

(a) the redemption decree was granted on 13.12.1976; the challenge in appeal in RA 26/77 came to be dismissed on 16.01.1978; further challenge in RSA 551/78 came to be negatived by this Court on 08.10.1990; the decree holders CRP Nos.2929/2003 & 544/2005 against dismissal of Execution Petition & the FDP succeeded before this Court; review petition of the JDRs against the same was also rejected on 10.10.2012; thus because of the abuse of judicial process by the JDRs, the fruits of decree even now have not reached the hands of the victorious parties in the suit of the year 1976; more than four decades have lapsed and original parties to the suit have died too; (b) this Court in decree holders CRP No.2929/2003 vide judgment dated 07.12.2010 had ordered as under:

“(I) The impugned order is unsustainable and it is set aside. (II) Exn.Peittion No.2/93 is restored to the file of the executing court. The exec