JUDGMENT N. N. Sharma, J. - The second appeal as well as Civil Revision are being disposed of by this common judgment as the decision of both these cases centres on the determination of the controversy amongst the parties. Sri Govind Prasad Chaturvedi, defendant is the appellant and revisionist in both these cases. Admittedly he was the tenant of the disputed premises Kothi No. 110, situate at Swadeshi Bima Nagar, Agra. Monthly rent was Rs. 75/- and the tenancy used to commence from 2nd of every month of English Calender. Parties entered into an agreement on 24-3-1964 by which the disputed premises were agreed to be sold to the tenant for a sum of Rs. 24,000/-. A sum Rs. 4000/- in cash was paid by the tenant as earnest money to the proposed vendors. Sale was to be executed upto 24-5-1964. In case the tenant did not get the sale registered within two months the earnest money of Rs. 4000/- was to stand forfeited otherwise it was to go forward towards the satisfaction of the sale proceeds. 2. It appears that the sale deed was not executed by the first stipulated detained the tenant filed civil suit No. 122 of 1964 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra on 2-9-1964 which was decreed on 26-11-65 in the following terms : - "Suit for specific performance of the contract of sale, dated 24th March, 1964 is decreed with costs. The defendants are ordered to execute the sale deed of the property detailed at the foot of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff within a period of 2 months from today on receipt of Rs. 20000/-, the balance of sale consideration and Rs. 956 on account of arrears of rent due upto 25th May, 1964 i.e. , Rs. 20,956 in all. In case the defendants failed to execute the sale deed within the above period then the same shall be got done through court at their expenses and costs." 3. The landlords carried the matter in appeal. This court allowed this appeal. The judgment of this court was reversed in civil appeal No. 696 of 1971 by three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court. The landlords carried the matter in appeal. This court allowed this appeal. The judgment of this court was reversed in civil appeal No. 696 of 1971 by three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court. The operative portion of the judgment reads as below : - "In the result we allow the appeal on the ground that the respondents have failed to establish that the time is of the essence of the contract and that the appellant has succeeded in establishing that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the respondents evaded their responsibility. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, and that of the trial court is restored. The appeal is allowed with costs. The appellant will deposit Rs. 20000/- and the sale document in the court of the Civil Judge, Agra within six weeks from today and the parties will take further directions in the matter from the Civil Judge Agra." It appears that in pursuance of this judgment the tenant deposited money in a wrong court. That mistake was again rectified by Supreme Court on 12-12-1978, III Addl. Civil Judge Agra was ordered to remit the amount to the Court of Civil Judge, Agra and Civil Judge, Agra was directed to accept the amount to be remitted by III Addl. Civil Judge, Agra in compliance of the order dated 28-1-1977. 4. The sale deed was not executed by landlord. It was executed by Civil Judge, Agra. In pursuance of the order of Supreme Court in C. M. P. No. 16671 of 1978 which reads : ".........but it is manifest that until a sale deed is executed in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the decree for specific performance of the contract made by this court, the petitioner were his landlords. All such rents which are legally payable and recoverable must be paid. If there is a dispute as to amount of rent due and recoverable, the matter will be decided by the Civil Judge, Agra. With utmost expediency, as agreed to by the parties." 5. This appeal was decided on 12-12-1978 by two Hon'ble Judges. 6. The sale deed was executed by Civil Judge on 28-4-1982. 7. If there is a dispute as to amount of rent due and recoverable, the matter will be decided by the Civil Judge, Agra. With utmost expediency, as agreed to by the parties." 5. This appeal was decided on 12-12-1978 by two Hon'ble Judges. 6. The sale deed was executed by Civil Judge on 28-4-1982. 7. Meanwhile another Suit No. 138 of 1964 was brought by the respondents - landlords against the tenant for delivery of possession and recovery of arrears of rent which was decreed by Munsif, Agra in full on 23-8-1972. That decree was affirmed by Sri S.L. Adarsh, learned II Addl. Civil Judge Agra dated 12-5-1976 in Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1972. 8. Second Appeal No. 953 of 1976 has been preferred against that judgment of the appellate court. In pursuance of the directions of Supreme Court in C. M. P. No. 16671 of 1978 learned Civil Judge, Agra found that the landlords were entitled to recover arrears of rent till the execution of the sale deed. After deducting the amount of Rs. 107,34.25 already deposited by the tenant, he was further directed to deposit Rs. 3440.75 and the rent for the subsequent months from February 79, to July, 1979 at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month. Civil Revision is directed against this order. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Obviously Second Appeal has to be partly allowed now as the Judgment of Supreme Court dated 28-1-1977 is binding now. By this judgment after execution of the sale deed the tenant has become the owner of the disputed premises in pursuance of the agreement to sell and is not liable to enactment. 10. In this connection certified copy of the sale deed executed on 28-4-1982 in the Office of Sub-Registrar Agra and registered on 4-2-83 was filed before me on 20-10-1983, That application was not opposed by learned Advocate for the respondents. This document is allowed in the interest of justice as it was executed subsequent to the impugned decision. Similar Misc. Application No. 416 of 1978 by which copy of judgment of Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1971 was filed has to be admitted as this is a public document inter parties and learned Advocates for parties conceded that the aduction of this additional evidence was essential for decision of the appeal as well as revision. 11. Similar Misc. Application No. 416 of 1978 by which copy of judgment of Civil Appeal No. 696 of 1971 was filed has to be admitted as this is a public document inter parties and learned Advocates for parties conceded that the aduction of this additional evidence was essential for decision of the appeal as well as revision. 11. Now as regards the rent anterior to the execution of the sale deed a portion of which was allowed by the impugned judgment in Second Appeal aforesaid and the impugned order giving rise to the civil Revision the controversy centres round the question as to whether the landlords were entitled to the rent at the agreed rate only for the period in between 24-3-1964 and 24-5-1964 or for the subsequent period upto the execution of the sale deed i.e. 28-4-1982. 12. On behalf of the appellant and revisionist it was argued that all these proceedings were delayed by the landlords who did not keep the promise and carried the matter in appeal upto the last rung of the ladder so they would not be entitled to claim rent for the subsequent period ; it was further argued that the judgment in civil appeal No. 696 of 1971 was decided by three Hon'ble Judges on 28-1-1977 while the subsequent judgment was decided in execution side on 12-12-1978. It was well established that the executing court could not go behind the decree and the earlier decision had the force of res judicata. In support of these contentions reliance was placed upon Prag v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others, reported in A.W.C.C. 1984, page 1034. 13. I have carefully considered all these contentions which are simply devoid of force. Learned Civil Judge rightly referred to clause VI/- agreement which provided that upto the date of the execution of the sale deed the rent was payable by the tenant to the landlord at the stipulated rate. This stipulation is binding specially when this controversy has been set at rest by the order of the Supreme Court in C. M. P. No. 16671 of 1978 extracted above. This stipulation is binding specially when this controversy has been set at rest by the order of the Supreme Court in C. M. P. No. 16671 of 1978 extracted above. After the aforesaid order there is no question of any res judicata of the earlier decisions being delivered by more Hon'ble Judges than the number of judges who decided C. M. P. No. 16671 of 1978 when the same controversy inter-parties was being decided by the Supreme Court. That direction of the Supreme Court is binding on the Civil Judge, Agra who could not have ignored it. 14. Learned Civil Judge Agra has given good reasons for holding that even subsequent to 25-5-1964 rent was deposited in court by the tenant without any demure for withdrawal by the landlords. 15. It does not appeal to common sense that in civil proceeding where parties are embroiled in a durable litigation a person should be penalised for prolonging the proceedings in this manner specially when the history of the case shows that the matter in this case was referred to a full Bench and that this decision was set aside by the Supreme Court. It is right of the litigants to approach the courts to ventilate their grievances. Under such circumstances it is obvious that the landlords were well entitled to recover the arrears of rent upto the date of execution of the sale deed. 16. In this view of the matter civil Revision is dismissed and the impugned order is affirmed. Second Appeal No. 953 of 1976 is partly allowed. The relief for ejectment sought by landlords is refused but the impugned decree for, recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1318.54 and mesne profits pendente lite and future at Rs. 75/- per month on payment of requisite court fees in the Execution Department shall stand. Parties shall bear their own costs of this court. Thus the impugned order dated 12-5-1970 recorded by Sri S.L. Adarsh, Learned IInd Addl. Civil Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 318 of 1972 is modified accordingly. Stay order dated 3-9-1979 of the Civil Revision and dated 20-5-1976 in the Second appeal are vacated herewith.