JUDGMENT

MISRA, J.:— This is a petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 2nd of Sept., 1981 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad disposing of Execution Second Appeals Nos. 1001 and 1720 of 1977 and Civil Revision No. 1447 of 1978. The petition was heard on 7th of Dec., 1981 at some length and after hearing the counsel for the parties we dismissed the same for reasons to be recorded later. We now proceed to give the reasons.

2. 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. Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 entered into an agreement with respondents Nos. 1 to 5 on 30th of July. 1967 for sale of certain plots situate behind their shop for Rs. 15,500/-. Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 had paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/ as earnest money pursuant to the agreement. The sale deed was agreed to be executed within fifteen days of the agreement. Respondents Nos. 6 to 9, however, executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner Babu Lal in respect of the same property for Rs. 20,000/- on 7th of August, 1967 in defiance of the earlier agreement dated 30th of July, 1967. Under the circumstances respondents Nos. 1 to 5 were obliged to file a suit which was later on numbered as suit No. 10 of 1968 in the Court of Civil Judge, Aligarh for specific performance of the contract of sale. 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. It appears that during the pendency of the suit the petitioner started construction on the disputed plot after demolishing the old construction. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed an application for an injunction restraining the petitioner from making any construction. The petitioner,. however, gave an undertaking on 25th of March, 1968 that he was making the construction at his own peril and would demolish the construction and restore the land to its original position in case the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. It appears that on the undertaking given by the petitioner the application for injunction was dismissed. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal the Addl. District Judge decreed the suit. In Second Appeal the High Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court with a slight modification inasmuch as the High Court directed the petitioner and respondents Nos. 6 to 9 to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 to bring it in line with the decision of the SC in Lala Durga Prasad. v. Lala Deep Chand, 1954 SCR 360 (AIR 1954 SC 75) wherein it was held :

"In a suit instituted by a purchaser against the vendor and a subsequent purchaser for specific performance of the contract of sale. if the plaintiff succeeds, the proper form of the decree to be passed is to direct specific performance of the contract between the vendor and the Plaintiff and direct the subsequent transferee to join in the conveyance so as to pass on the title which resides in him to the plaintiff."

The petitioner, however, did not hand- over possession and remove construction raised, by him despite his undertaking dated 25th of March, 1968. The decree- holders, therefore, applied for execution of the decree. The judgment-debtor-petitioner filed an objection under S. 47, Civil P. C. taking all possible pleas to defeat the execution. His objections were three fold : (1) The decree was inexecutable as the decree-holders did not claim a relief for possession in the suit itself and consequently there was no decree for possession. The application for execution by delivery of possession was liable to be dismissed on this score alone in view of S. 22 (2) of the Specific Relief Act. (2) The Urban Land Ceiling Act having come into force it was incumbent on the decree-holders to obtain the permission as required under Ss. 26 and 27 of that Act and in the absence of any such perm