The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to penalize those filing frivolous petitions to ensure the purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep K. Shinde, J.

1. Heard Mr. Patil the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Patwardhan the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

2. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions seeks leave to withdraw the petition and placed on record instructions received from the petitioners. Leave is declined for the following reasons:

"Before adverting to the reasons, let me place on record dates of events, in the order of their occurrence between the parties."

3. The co-operative Court in the year 1993 passed judgment and award and as per the award, opponent no. 3, predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the disputant (opponent/respondent no. 1 herein). The judgment and award was confirmed by the Co-operative Appellate Court and further by this Court in Writ Petition and the Letters Patent Appeal. That as such, award was put to execution in Regular Darkhast No. 170 of 1993. Executing Court disposed of the Regular Darkhast No. 170 of 1993 on the ground that it is not tenable as the award had been modified by the Co-operative Appellate Court. This order of the executing Court was challenged by respondent no. 1 before this Court. Vide order dated 26th June, 2009, this Court directed executing Court to execute the award in modified format. Petitioners thereupon filed an application in April, 2012 objecting to the execution of the award on the ground that execution proceedings are not maintainable when the award is modified in appeal. The learned executing Court rejected the said objection against which Writ Petition No. 5229 of 2012 before this Court was filed. This Court dismissed the said writ petition on 15th June, 2012. Yet another application was filed before executing Court objecting to the execution of the award. Petitioners thereupon again filed another Writ Petition No. 11794 of 2012 before this Court and this Court clarified that since petitioners are claiming through the judgment debtor, petitioners don't have any independent right to challenge the execution proceedings. Thereupon order passed in Writ Petition No. 11794 of 2012 was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal No. 321 of 2013. However, Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same by order dated 16th December, 2013. The Apex Court upheld this order in Special Leave Petition No. 5123 of 2014. Thereafter, petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 449 of 2013 and also applied for interim relief therein seeking stay to the execution proceedings. The trial Court refused to grant the interim relief. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 11238 of 2014. Petitioners withdrew the petition with liberty to file an application before the Civil Court. On 16th March, 2017, the executing Court issued warrant of possession. Petitioners made a grievance that all pending applications were not decided by the executing Court before issuing possession warrant and thus, another writ petition no. 3673 of 2017 was filed before this Court. This Court thus directed executing Court to decide all the pending applications and the main execution application on or before 1st November, 2017. Executing Court, accordingly, decided all the pending applications and rejected them and as such, ordered to issue possession warrant.

4. Against the order dated 1st November, 2017, petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 12951 of 2017 and made grievance that application below Exhibit 298 was not decided. This Court vide order dated 22nd February, 2018 directed executing Court to decide the said application within two weeks. On 8th March, 2018 executing Court rejected the application by a speaking order. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3126 of 2018. On 9th October, 2018, this Court dismissed the said writ petition also.

5. Thereafter on 10th October, 2018, petitioner filed an application for dismissal of execution proceedings by stating that respondent no. 1 is no more a member of responden