As per case facts, appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement, which was decreed. During execution, respondents (not parties to the specific performance suit) objected, claiming independent title based ... on sale deeds from an alleged oral gift. Appellants had previously filed suits to cancel these sale deeds but allowed them to be dismissed for default, and their restoration applications also failed. The executing court initially dismissed the objection, but the Appellate Court and High Court ruled that appellants needed to file a separate suit. The question arose whether the dismissal for default of the appellants' prior suits, challenging the respondents' title, should preclude them from raising these issues again in execution proceedings, specifically regarding res judicata and abuse of process. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that while dismissal for default doesn't strictly constitute res judicata, the appellants' conduct in abandoning their earlier suits and failing to pursue their claims amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. Therefore, they are barred from challenging the respondents' title in execution, upholding the Appellate Court's decision to require a separate suit for those issues, though for different reasons focusing on the appellants' conduct and public policy.