Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present is an execution first appeal under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC directed against the order dated 31.07.2014 passed by the learned ADJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi. By the impugned order, the learned ADJ disposed of four applications before him. The particulars of these application shall be taken note of a little later. At the core of all these applications, the controversy was the same.

2. The dispute between the parties relates to their competing claims towards enhanced compensation in respect of land falling in field No.1771/1639 admeasuring 0-17 (17 biswas only) situated in the revenue estate village Tughlakabad, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi. The said land was notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act (the Act) on 08.06.1992. Declaration under section 6 of the Act was made on 29.07.1992 and Award no.4/94-95 as passed on 11.05.1994. Possession of the same was taken over on 04.07.1998, which vested in the government free from all encumbrances. In the said land, the following persons had specified shares:

i. Sh. Madan Lal Mittal

ii. Sh D.K. Mittal (son of Sh. Madan Lal Mittal)

iii. Sh. Sanesh Kumar Mittal (son of Sh. Madan Lal Mittal)

iv. Smt. Sadhna Gupta (daughter of Sh. Madan Lal Mittal and wife of Sh. Arun Kumar Gupta)-appellant No.1, and

v. Sh. Shishpal– the respondent no.1.

3. Compensation was received by the aforesaid parties in their respective shares as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC). They preferred a joint reference under section 18 of the Act before the LAC. The same was forwarded to the Court by the LAC for adjudication of the market value. The petitioners in the reference petition, including respondent no.1 Shishpal, pursued the reference under section 18 of the Act. The reference Court assessed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.3,000/- per sq yd vide judgment dated 19.01.2004. While doing so, the reference Court placed reliance on the earlier judgment of this court in RFA No.461/1995 titled Harichand v. Union of India dated 30.03.2001, wherein the market value had been assessed @ Rs.3,000/- per sq yd and the SLP filed by the Union of India being SLP (C) No.7428/2002, against the said judgment had also been dismissed.

4. Madan Lal Mittal, D.K. Mittal, Sanesh Kumar Mittal and Sadhna Gupta filed their execution to execute the decree passed by the reference Court to the extent of their respective shares, and received the enhanced compensation in 2005. Thereafter, Madan Lal Mittal expired on 08.05.2007.

5. On 17.12.2007, Arun Kumar Gupta - the son-in-law of Madan Lal Mittal and the husband of Sadhna Gupta-appellant No.1 filed Execution Petition No.490/2007 to execute the decree dated 19.01.2004 passed in favour of respondent no.1 Shishpal, who was decree holder no.6.

6. This action of Arun Kumar Gupta was premised on a registered Assignment cum Sale deed dated 22.11.2003 allegedly executed by Shishpal – respondent no.1 in his favour, through his attorney Madan Lal Mittal. Madan Lal Mittal acted for and on behalf of Shishapal – respondent no.1 on the basis of a General Power of Attorney dated 06.11.2001 executed by Shishpal and his wife Krishna Devi. Neither the General Power of Attorney dated 06.11.2001, nor the Assignment cum Sale deed dated 22.11.2003 were produced before the reference Court, even though the reference was subsequently decided on 19.01.2004. No application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC was filed by Arun Kumar Gupta before the reference court to seek substitution of Shish Pal by Arun Kumar Gupta before the decision of the Reference.

7. Arun Kumar Gupta also filed an application under section 151 CPC seeking permission to file execution, and another application under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking to substitute himself in the decree dated 09.01.2004 in place of Shish Pal, the respondent herein. Of the four, these are two of the applications dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

8. In January 2008, respondent no.1 Shishpal filed an Executio