ORDER :

1. The instant miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner–decree holder challenging the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Seventh District Judge, Gwalior in Execution Case No. 400021 of 2023, whereby the execution application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of abatement.

2. The instant miscellaneous petition has been renumbered from Civil Revision No. 105 of 2025, which was earlier disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12th November, 2025. Prior to the disposal of the civil revision, it is found from the record that despite various efforts being made for service, including paper publication, the respondents could not be served. Therefore, they were treated as served, and the counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 sought time to file Vaklatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7. As a result, Shri N.K. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri SS Bhadauria, learned counsel, appears for respondent No.7 in the present matter. The other respondents are deemed to be served, as despite service of notice, no one appears on their behalf.

3. A few facts giving rise to the present miscellaneous petition, as narrated therein, are that the petitioner instituted a civil suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the respondents- defendants in respect of land situated in Survey Nos. 1113 to 1118, ad- measuring 8 Bigha 8 Biswa at Village Morar, District Gwalior. It was pleaded that earlier, a suit for partition was filed between Ajay Kumar, Jagat Narayan, Lalta Prasad, Murarilal, Bhagwati Prasad, Omprakash, Jaiprakash, Kailash Prasad, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Usha, Anita, and Sangita, which was settled by way of compromise. Under the said compromise, Lalta Prasad acquired a 1/5th share in the property. After the death of Lalta Prasad, his legal representatives, namely Smt. Tara Garg and her sons Rakesh, Rajeev, and Raghav Garg, succeeded to his share. As per the plaint pleadings, Smt. Tara Garg, along with Rajesh and Rajeev, appointed Raghav Garg as their power of attorney holder vide registered power of attorney dated 16.10.1991. Similarly, Kailash Prasad and his son also appointed Raghav Garg as their power of attorney holder vide registered power of attorney dated 23.01.1992. Thereafter, Raghav Garg entered into an agreement to sell dated 25.11.1999 with the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/-. Since the agreement was not honoured, the petitioner filed a civil suit seeking specific performance.

4. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise application was filed, wherein it was agreed that Raghav Garg would develop the land and sell plots to various persons, but no sale deed would be executed without the written consent of both plaintiffs, namely Paras Chand Jain and Naveen Jain. It was further agreed that the income generated from the sale of plots would be shared equally, i.e., 50% each between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and that all sale deeds would specifically mention that they were executed in compliance with the compromise decree. The compromise was accepted by the trial Court, and a decree was passed on 23.09.2001. However, after the passing of the compromise decree, the defendants failed to comply with its terms and continued to alienate the property without consent or intimation to the decree holder. Consequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 26.05.2004 and thereafter filed an execution application. During the execution proceedings, the judgment debtors repeatedly filed applications raising objections to stall execution, all of which were dismissed.

5. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, judgment debtors Ashok Garg and Tara Garg died. Applications were filed by the petitioner for deletion of their names, stating that some of their legal representatives were already on record. After considering objections, the executing Court allowed the d