Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) By this revision petition, the petitioners seek to revise the order dated 28.3.1990, which has been passed by Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi in Suit No. 111 of 1988.
(2) I find from the papers that have been filed in this case, that there is a previous history. The Supreme Court had, vide its order dated 24.9.1985, stated as follow :-
"THIS case has come up before us for number of times. It is painful to see how the decree passed by the High Court of Delhi in Suit No. 431/77 which is affirmed finally by this court in SLP (CIVIL) No. 12340/83 and the order passed by the High Court on 9.11.83 in F.A.O. No. 114/83 which is affirmed by this Court on 6.1.84 in Slp (CIVIL) No. 14828 and 14834 of 1983 and attempted-to be frustrated by the petitioner G.S. Bedi his wife Shakuntala Kaur and daughters Rajinder Kaur, Surjit Kaur and Parvinder Kaur, who have appeared be Fore us one after another, speaking and acting on behalf of the petitioner by resorting to several methods including filing of suits in different courts. The image of administration of justice has suffered thereby considerably. We request the High Court to execute the decree by putting the decree holder in physical possession of the property within two weeks from today, notwithstanding any order of any court and report to this court compliance of this order".
(3) The Supreme Court concluded by that order a suit for specific performance which had been decreed by this Court. The suit had been decreed in favor of Ram Prakash, respondent No. 2, and it was Ram Prakash who was ordered to be put in possession of the property in suit.
(4) In the revision petition before me, Rajinder Kaur and Surjit Kaur, petitioners, have appeared in person. These two persons are the daughters of Gurdial Singh Bedi, against whom suit No.'' 431 of 1977 was decreed. After the decree was passed in suit No. 431 of 1977, a suit was filed .in the court of Subordinate Judge, Patna by the petitioners. It ''is this suit which was filed before the Subordinate Judge, Patna, which was transferred from Patna to Delhi, and re-numbered as Suit No. 1ll of 1938. This'' transfer order was issued by the Supreme Court.
(5) It is not disputed that after the order of the Supreme Court dated 24.9.1985, reproduced here above ,possession of the suit property has been delivered to Ram Prakash. It is also not disputed that on the said plot of land re-building has been done by Ram Prakash.
(6) During the course of hearing of suit No. 111 of 1988, the petitioners represented to the Court, dealing with that suit, that some clarification was required to be obtained from the Supreme Court with respect to the order that had been passed by it on 24.9.1985.
(7) The clarification that has been obtained, is stated in the order of the Supreme Court dated 18.9:1989, which reads as under :-
"It is not disputed that the suit No. 1 11 of 1988 is pending on the file of Shri Ravi Kumar Jain. Additional District Judge, Delhi, and it is still to be disposed of. It is also not disputed by both the parties that it is open to the learned Additional District Judge to pass any fresh interim order or modify the existing order in the interest of justice. If any of the party is aggrieved by that order, it is open to the said party to question before the High Court in appropriate proceedings. The civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly".
(8) The reason for obtaining Clair factory order from the Supreme Court was that some stay order had been given by the Subordinate Judge, Patna. That order of stay has now been vacated by the impugned orders, for the reason that the court below has accepted a bank guarantee for rupees 2 lacs, which would be available to the petitioners in the event of their succeeding in the suit, which is yet to be tried.
(9) Suit No. 111 of 1988 purports to be a suit for specific performance ofanagreementtoselldated-3.10.75 between G.S.Bedi, father of the petitioners, and the petitioners. It is to be noted that this agreement to sell pre-dates the agreement to sell dated 11.10.75, which was ordered to be specifically performed in the decree passed in suit No. 431 of 1977.
(10) Respondent No. 2, Ram Prakash, who has given the bank guarantee for rupees 2 lacs, will keep the bank guarantee alive till disposal of suit No. 1ll of 1988, now pending before Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge.
(11) With the aforesaid-observations, I find no merit in the revision petition. The same is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
