M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. There has been a growing demand over the years to re-visit the procedural law qua the delay in the justice delivery system. While there may be various reasons for delay, abusing the process of law is one of the primary concern. This case could very well be a case in point. The litigation started in the year 1962 is yet to get concluded, thus, justifying the public perception that a real journey towards justice starts after the decree.

2. Before going into the merits of the case, a broad recapitulation of the facts is required.

C.S. No. 43 of 1962 was filed before this Court for re-conveyance of 'A' Schedule property followed by delivery of possession. It was instituted by the father and son, the appellant being the later. After contest, the suit was decreed on 10.11.1965. The defendants No. 1 and 2 filed appeals before the Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1966 respectively.

3. In the meanwhile, a registered family settlement deed was said to have been executed by the 1st plaintiff on 22.5.1969, by which, the appellant was given certain properties. In turn, he relinquished and released his claim over the remaining properties. It also appears that the appellant has sold some of the properties given to him in pursuant to the above said deed. Thereafter, a registered Will was allegedly executed by the 1st plaintiff on 15.7.1970 in favour of his four other children said to be illegitimate.

4. On 10.5.1972, a Division Bench of this Court was pleased to allow the appeals preferred against the judgment and decree rendered in C.S. No. 43 of 1962. The 1st plaintiff alone filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was subsequently converted into Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1974. The reason for the appellant in not preferring the appeal must be known only to him, perhaps, because of the documents referred above. However, we do not propose to go into the said issue. Suffice it is to state that in the Civil Appeal, the appellant was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.

5. Pending Civil Appeal No. 224 of 1974, the sole appellant died on 31.12.1980. C.M.P. No. 7282 of 1981 was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased claiming through the registered Will dated 15.7.1970. The application was duly allowed, apparently with the knowledge and tacit approval of the appellant. By the order dated 17.4.1995, the Apex Court allowed civil Appeal No. 224 of 1974 reversing the judgment and decree rendered by the Division Bench of this Court. It was held that the judgment debtors were to execute a deed of re-conveyance within a period of thirty days, failing which, the trial Court would execute the same.

6. Despite the above said order, ignoring the impleaded legal representatives of the deceased, the appellant herein levied execution proceedings in E.P. No. 48 of 1997, apparently claiming himself as a sole plaintiff entitled for the decree. Curiously, even his own natural sister was not added in the said application.

7. After some more proceedings, the learned Master passed an order on 7.7.2000 directing the Judgment debtors to execute a deed of re-conveyance and deliver possession within a month. As the respondents 1 to 4 were not added as parties, appeals have been filed under Order XXIV Rule 12 of Original Side Rules in Application Nos. 2872 and 2873 of 2000 before the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the learned single Judge was pleased to direct re-conveyance of the property in favour of the appellant as well as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as decree holders, while holding the appellant guilty of suppression of material facts. Incidentally, it was held that the dispute with respect to the shares was to be decided separately.

8. Not satisfied with the same, the appellant preferred appeal in O.S.A. No. 372 of 2000. While affirming the order of the learned single Judge, the Division Bench directed respondents 1 to 4 to be added as co-petitioners in the Execution Petition, followed by re-conveyance. A me