ORDER :

This MCC has been filed by the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 and Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking relief therein to set aside the order passed on 22.06.2018 in Review Petition No. 913/2018 and the decree drawn in pursuance to the order dated 22.06.2018 be also set aside.

2. The facts adumbrated in nutshell are that non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement on 24.12.2013 to sell the land belonging to Kh. No. 244, 240/2, 243/1 and 244/1 situated at Patwari Halka No. 11 of Village Jharkhera, Tehsil and District Sehore, total area measuring 11.20 acres. The non-applicant No. 3, on the basis of power of attorney of non-applicant No. 2 (Smt. Jyoti Goyal) executed the sale deed for sale of 3.25 acres of land on 15.07.2014 in favour of non-applicant No.1.

3. A civil suit was filed by non-applicant No.1 for specific performance of agreement entered into between the parties and after filing the civil suit, on the basis of an application for amendment, the nomenclature of the plaintiff was changed.

4. An application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was filed by the non-applicant No. 3 namely, Bilal Hussain for rejecting the plaint and vide order dated 02.03.2016, the application was allowed and thereafter first appeal under Section 96 of CPC was filed against the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2016 passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2015. In the said appeal, on 31.10.2017 parties appeared before the High Court and asked to pass a decree in terms of the agreement executed by the parties before the mediator and also claimed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be remitted to the trial court for testing the same on merit. On 31.10.2017, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2015 in view of the compromise took place between the parties before the mediator and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for testing the same on merit and in view of the provision of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act the High Court directed the authority to refund the court fees deposited by the appellant.

5. Thereafter, a review petition was preferred by non-applicant No.1 M/s Fusions Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. pointing out that the decree as per the order of the court has not been drawn and the same be directed to be drawn in view of the terms and conditions of Annexure A/1. The review petition i.e. RP No. 913/2018 was disposed of vide order dated 22.06.2018 directing Registry to draw a decree in terms of agreement dated 06.07.2017. As per the agreed terms, as placed before the mediator, a sale deed was to be executed in respect of 3.75 acres of land by non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3.

6. Thereafter, decree was drawn and the First Appeal No.267/2016 was accordingly decided and a compromise decree was passed by the High Court in pursuance to the request made by the parties moving an application under Section 89 of CPC filed in First Appeal No. 267/2016 asking that the matter be referred to the mediator.

7. However, the non-applicant No. 3 filed review petitions i.e. RP Nos. 621/2019 and 422/2019, which were entertained by this Court and decided vide order dated 27.09.2019 dismissing the same with cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

8. Against the order dated 27.09.2019 passed in the aforesaid review petitions, SLP was filed before the Supreme Court and the said SLP was also dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2020 wherein the Supreme Court condoned the delay occurred in filing the SLP, but, dismissed the SLP observing as under:-

"We do not see any reason to interfere in the matters. The special leave petitions are, accordingly, dismissed."

9. Thereafter, the decree drawn in pursuance to the order of the High Court was put for execution in which the application was moved by the present applicant under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for deleting his name, but, the said application was rejected by the Executing Court vide order dated 07.12.2019 against which a petition i.e. MP No. 268/2020