Y. K. Sabharwal,j.

( 1 ) IN this Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is tothe correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court, whohad dismissed the appellant s execution first appeal and had upheld the orderof the executing court dismissing the objection filed by the appellant underorder 21, Rule 97 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 2 ) THE litigation from which this appeal arises appears to have a chequered history. The decree which is now sought to be executed was passed in theyear 1976 and litigation has thereafter been pending between the parties forthe last about ten years and the relevant facts are as follows.

( 3 ) THE appellants in this appeal are sons of Smt. Sudarshan Kumariwife of Shri Behari Lal Sharma (respondent No. 2 ). Smt Sudarshan Kumarientered into an agreement to sell the property No. M-48, Kalkaji, New Delhi,to Sh. Satya Swarup Singh Bhatti (Respondent No. 1) vide agreement dated 26/04/1970 which was also signed by Shri Behari Lal Sharma, husbandof respondent No. 2 and father of the appellants. A supplementary agreementdated 19. 6. 1970 was also entered into between respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, and under this agreement some more amount was paid byrespondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. In January 1972 respondentno. 1 filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No. 2. Thesuit was decreed by the Commercial Sub Judge Delhi on 3/08/1976. A Regular First Appeal (RFA 315/76) filed by respondent No. 2 was dismissedby this Court on 22/05/1980. It appears that permission was grained bythe competent authority for sale of the property in question to respondentno. 1, decree-holder. Respondent No. 2 filed objections challenging the validityof the sale permission. The said objections were filed on or about 10/10/1980. The said objections were dismissed by the trial court on l. 4. 1981. Against the order dated 1. 4. 1981, the J. D. respondent No. 2 filed an Executionfirst Appeal No. 3/81 in this court. It further appears that along with thisexecution First Appeal, an application was filed seeking stay of the operationof the order of the trial court dated 1/04/1981, and stay of furtherproceedings before the trial court. The said application was supported by anaffidavit of Shri Subodh Kumar who is one of the appellants before us. The said appeal (EFA 3/81) was dismissed by a learned single Judge of thiscourt on 2 ,th April 1981.

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 took the matter to the Supreme Court byfiling two Special Leave Petitions, one challenging the dismissed of RFA 315/78and other challenging the dismissal of EFA 3/81. Both the Special Leavepetitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25/09/1981. Respondent No. 2 filed two review petitions for the review of the orders dated 25/09/1981. The said review petitions were also dismissed by thesupreme Court on 16/03/1982.

( 5 ) AFTER the aforesaid protracted litigation, a sale deed in respect ofthe property in question was executed and registered in favour of respondentno. 1 on 14/10/1982.

( 6 ) THE matter, however, did not rest with the execution and registrationof the sale deed. On 12/11/1982 one Yadav Chander Sharma filedobjections to the execution. The said objections were dismissed on 23/04/1983. Shri Sharma filed Civil Revision 660/83 challenging the dismissal of hisobjections. The said Civil Revision was dismissed by a learned single Judge ofthis court on 4/08/1983. The said Shri Yadav Chander Sharma, itappear, filed a suit on or about 18/10/1982 for permanent injunctionrestraining respondent No. 2 from executing the warrant of possession. Alongwith the suit, an application for grant of an ad interim injunction was alsofiled. The application for grant of an ad interim injunction was dismissed bythe trial court on 19/09/1983. The appeal against the order dated 19/09/1983 was dismissed by the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi, on 8/11/1983. It was thereafter that the objections were filed by three sonsof the judgment debtor o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document