JUDGMENT

N.N. Mithal, J. - The plaintiff decree-holder has come up in appeal against an order of remand. The facts, in so far as they are relevant for our purposes, need to be set out first.

2. One Khalil was the owner of the disputed house bearing Municipal No. A-39/337, A registered agreement of sale was executed by him in favour of the appellant on 16-6-1975 for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- out of which Rs. 2000/- was received in advance. Requisite permission from the ceiling authorities was obtained on 31-10-1975. It appears that later on the aforesaid Khalil was unwilling to execute the sale deed and the plaintiff had to resort to civil action seeking a decree for specific performance in suit No. 15 of 1976. Despite contest, the suit was decreed on 27-5-1977 and in pursuance thereof sale deed was also executed by the court for and on behalf of the defendant on 29-4-1978. When the said decree was put into execution for obtaining delivery of possession, it was resisted by one Yusuf whose wife Amna Bibi claimed to have purchased the property from khalil through sale deed dated 27-7-1977. The property was later purchased by respondents 1 and 2 on 13-1-1978. In view of this resista