1. Special leave granted.
2. This case is of sheer abuse of the process of the court. The respondents suffered an ex parte decree which this Court ultimately confirmed and dismissed SLP No. 8382 of 1992 on 9-7-1992. The respondents also had given an undertaking that they will vacate the premises within three months from the date of the High Court order. The High Court order was on 1-7-1992. They did not vacate.
3. Again the respondents launched upon the second front of litigation and filed Writ Petition No. 34606 of 1992 which was dismissed by the High Court on 18-8-1992. Thereafter Regular Suit No. 400 of 1992 was got filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Mathura through proxy for declaration and injunction. The civil suit was dismissed on 1-9-1992 which was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 30-9-1992.
4. Again in the third round of litigation in execution objection as to jurisdiction was raised but disallowed by the executing court. Two proceedings were initiated against that order, one before the Second Additional Civil Judge, Mathura and another by the writ petition in which the impugned orders came to be made. It is stated that the High Court has heard the matter and the orders were reserved. That order does not detain us from disposing of the matter on merits.
5. As stated earlier, this process adopted by the respondents is sheer abuse of the process of the court and they cannot be permitted to agitate the matter even on points of jurisdiction. The appeals are allowed with exemplary costs fixed at Rs 15,000. The orders of the High Court as well as of the District Court are set aside. The executing court is directed to give police assistance and to deliver the possession of the property within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.