1. answer lies in your question itself. Third party has NO LOCUS. 

2. not restricted to money decree but other decrees as well

3. that is not constructive res judicata but ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW AND SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS AND APPROACHING COURT WITH UNCLEAN HANDS

4. If there is belated objection, then the party has to explain the delay and if unable to explain delay then adverse inference can be drawn against such party

5. both used interchangeably being synonyms

6. there is no truth or falsehood in that. Its a submission. A party cannot ague on facts which were actively suppressed from the court. That amounts to misleading the court

7. LA has to ascertain that all the parties are present before it and it has to properly verify such parties and ascertain from them whether or not they have voluntarily entered into the compromise

8. that amounts to waiver and acquiescence by the JD 

9. Not now. later in the obstructionist proceedings they can be heard by the executing court 

1. Court must provide legal arguments proving Order 1 Rule 10 does not apply to execution proceedings. 

2. Order 21 Rule 2 CPC applies to any decree as amended in 1976.

3. Court may issue stay orders or injunctions to prevent filing of objection applications.

4. Objections must be taken early; late objections not permissible.

5. Compromise is settlement between two+ parties to end dispute; settlement resolves dispute w/o litigation.

6. Doctrine of concealment prevents arguing facts deliberately suppressed from court.

7. Absent parties can challenge award from Lok Adalat on fraud/misrepresentation grounds.

8. Endorsement remark does not attract Constructive Rej Judicata; party can still challenge application/sale deed if unlawful.

9. Those who purchased suit land during lis pendency/interim stay to be added when EP kept for final orders.

1. If you feel that you are not liable on the basis of the documentary evidences you possess, you may file a counter objection to the EP expressing your grievances.

2. You have to be concerned only if you are one of the JDs in the original suit.

3. Dismiss for default is not resjudicata.

4. The objections have to be filed immediately on appearance.

5. Compromise settlement intimated to court to draw a decree by filing a memo to this effect.

6. The court will not allow the lacuna to be filled.

7. The aggrieved party can agitate and file an appeal.

8. No it is not.

9. Yes 

You can oppose the said party being not a necessary party in the litigation and court not to admit the execution application.

Similar application can't be filed again for same cause of action and it becomes resjudicata 

Objection Yes mostly at earlier stage

Dear client,  

You are correct that Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC does not apply to execution proceedings. You can argue this in court by citing relevant case law and pointing out that the provision specifically applies to "suits" and not execution proceedings. You can also point out that the person in question does not have a direct interest in the execution proceedings and therefore does not have the necessary locus standi.

Order 21 Rule 2 of the CPC applies to all kinds of decrees, including money decrees, as amended in 1976. The provision allows for the recording of a compromise reached between the parties outside of court, and this can be done before the executing court.

Filing repeated objection applications without pursuing them can be seen as an abuse of process and may attract the doctrine of res judicata, particularly if the grounds of objection are the same. However, this will depend on the specific circumstances of the case and the court's interpretation of the law. To prevent a party from filing such applications, you may consider filing an application for costs or seeking an order from the court to restrict further filings without good cause.

This is correct. Any objections to an execution proceeding must be taken at the earliest opportunity, and if they are taken belatedly, they may not be permitted.

Compromise and settlement are often used interchangeably, but there is a legal difference between the two. A compromise is a settlement of a disputed claim, while a settlement can refer to any agreement between parties, including an agreement to waive a claim or to modify an existing contract. In court, it is important to be clear on the specific terms of the compromise or settlement in question.

It is generally true that parties cannot argue on facts that were suppressed from the court. This is because parties have a duty to disclose all relevant information to the court, and failure to do so can be seen as a breach of that duty. The specific consequences of such a breach will depend on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law.

No, a Lok Adalat cannot pass an award in the absence of one of the parties. Both parties must be present, and the award must be made by mutual agreement. An award made in the absence of one party may be treated as null and void.

The endorsement to issue show cause notice to the judgment debtor (JD) is a new order, and it is not covered by the doctrine of res judicata. However, if the JD does not challenge the order within the time limit provided by law, the order will become final and cannot be challenged in the future.

If the persons who purchased the suit land from the JD in violation of an interim stay are not parties to the suit, they may be added as parties to the execution proceeding. However, it may be prudent to wait until the court commissioner's report on the land records is filed before taking any further action, as this may affect the outcome of the execution proceeding. Ultimately, the specific course of action will depend on the facts of the case and the court's interpretation of the law.