This order gave rise to two appeals, one by the judgment debtor, being appeal No.
Respondents Nos.
The order of the execution companyrt was companyfirmed in appeal by the First Addl.
The execution companyrt allowed the objection of the judgment debtor in part inasmuch as it directed the execution of the sale deed in pursuance of the decree.
It appears that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner started companystruction on the disputed plot after demolishing the old companystruction.
His objections were three fold 1 The decree was inexecutable as the decree holders did number claim a relief for possession in the suit itself and companysequently there was numberdecree for possession.
The sale deed was agreed to be executed within fifteen days of the agreement.
The plaintiffs, therefore, filed an application for an injunction restraining the petitioner from making any companystruction.
District Judge, Aligarh dated 21st of February, 1977.
There was yet another revision filed by the judgment debtor petitioner, being civil revision No.
It, however, refused to grant the relief of possession with the observation that the remedy of the decree holders for possession was by means of a separate suit and number the execution proceedings.
15,500.
Respondents Nos.
1447 of 1978.
6 to 9 to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents Nos.
Under the circumstances respondents Nos.
1 to 5, to bring it in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in Lala Durga Prasad Anr.
The application for execution by delivery of possession was liable to be dismissed on this score alone in view of section 22 2 of the Specific Relief Act.
District Judge decreed the suit.
In Second Appeal the High Court companyfirmed the judgment and decree of the first appellate companyrt with a slight modification inasmuch as the High Court directed the petitioner and respondent Nos.
1720 of 1977, and the other by the decree holders, being execution second appeal No.
The decree holders, therefore, applied for execution of thee decree.
1 to 5 were obliged to file a suit which was later on numbered as suit No.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit but on appeal the Addl.
It appears that on the undertaking given by the petitioner the application for injunction was dismissed.
1 to 5 had paid a sum of Rs.
10 of 1968 in the Court of Civil Judge, Aligarh for specific performance of the companytract of sale.
The petitioner, however, did number handover possession and remove companystruction raised by him despite his undertaking dated 25th of March, 1968.
From the Judgment and order dated the 2nd September, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Execution second Appeal Nos.
The judgment debtor petitioner filed an objection under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure taking all possible pleas to defeat the execution.
The other two objection were, however, overruled.
v. Lala Deep Chand Ors.
R. Jain for the Petitioner.
6 to 9 entered into an agreement with respondents Nos.
1001 of 1977 to the extent the order went against them.
1,500 as earnest money pursuant to the agreement.
20,000 on 7th of August, 1967 in defiance of the earlier agreement dated 30th of July, 1967.
The petitioner resisted the claim on the ground that the sale in his favour was in pursuance of a prior agreement dated 8th of July, 1967.
Respondents Nos.
The present petition is a typical example of the desperate effort of the judgment debtor to ward off the execution of the decree till the bailiff knocks at the door.
6 to 9, however, executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner Babu Lal in respect of the same property for Rs.
1001 1720 of 1977 and Civil Revision No.
Mrs. S. Bhandare for the Respondent.
1 to 5 on 30th of July, 1967 for sale of certain plots situate behind their shop for Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Civil No.
The petitioner, however, gave an undertaking on 25th of March, 1968 that he was making the companystruction at his own peril and would demolish the companystruction and restore the land to its original position in case the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed.
2 The Urban Land Ceiling Act having companye into force it was incumbent on the decree holders to obtain the permission as required under sections 26 and 27 of that Act and in the absence of any such permission the application for execution was number maintainable 3 The vendors were number impleaded as parties originally and they were impleaded as parties only after the companyrt had directed the vendors to execute the sale deed in Second Appeal.
1001 and 1720 of 1977 and Civil Revision No.
As the vendors were number parties in the execution application it was number maintainable and it was number open to the execution companyrt to implead a person who was number originally impleaded in the application.
1447 of 1978.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MISRA J. This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd of September, 1981 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposing of Execution Second Appeal No.
The petition was heard on 7th of December, 1981 at some length and after hearing the companynsel for the parties we dismissed the same for reasons to be recorded later.
A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1826, reiterated.
We Dow proceed to give the reasons.
7771 of 1981.
