JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these six petitions relate to the same lis, I propose to dispose them of together by this order. 2. Budha Ram-plaintiff filed a Suit No. 31/93 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur for specific performance of contract against Idan Ram, Ramchandra, Dasu Ram, Dhalla Ram and Land Acquisition Officer, U.I.T., Jodhpur with the averments that he and defendant No. 4 made a contract with defendants 1, 2 and 3 to purchase land of Khasra Nos. 101 and 102 situated in Chopasni. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to the intending seller in part performance of the above contract. The remaining amount of Rs. 7,200/- was to be paid at the time of the execution of the above document. It was also averred that the sellers delivered possession of the above land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff several times asked the defendants-vendors to execute the sale deed and get the same registered as per agreement but the latter refused. The above suit was eventually decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiff. It may also be stated that the plaintiff's father after obtaining the decree filed an execution application in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No. 4, Jodhpur which is still pending. The above execution is under Challenge at the instance of the petitioners under an application filed under Section 47, C.RC. It appears that in the meantime the land was sold by the defendants to other persons. When the plaintiff came to know about this development he filed six suits against the petitioners praying for injunction. The petitioners them moved an application under Section 10, C.P.C. on the ground that the proceedings of the above suits be stayed as the execution application in respect of the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 31/ 93 was pending before the Court and its executability has also been challenged by filing an application under Section 47, C.P.C. The petitioners also very strongly pleaded that though the plaintiff has got decree in respect of the disputed land, he cannot be said to have acquired any right, title or interest in the above land inasmuch as so far the sale deed has not been executed in his favour in pursuance of the above decree. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 3-4-1997, dismissed the application in each suit. Hence these revision petitions. 3. The learned trial Court, by its order dated 3-4-1997, dismissed the application in each suit. Hence these revision petitions. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the suits filed by the plaintiff were not maintainable because the suit could only be brought by a person having right, interest of title in the above land. Thought the plaintiff has obtained a decree in respect of the above land but so far the sale deed has not been executed in his favour bestowing any right, title or interest on him. Without acquisition of the above attributes of ownership, the plaintiffs was not competent to have filed the above suits seeking injunction against the defendants from executing the sale deed. He further submitted that the above decree is under challenge inasmuch as an application under Section 47, C.P.C. has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner has submitted that after obtaining a decree in respect of the above land, the plaintiff has been declared by the Court to be an owner in respect of the above land. Now the sale deed is to be executed and it will be executed in due course inasmuch as the plaintiff has filed execution application in the Court. The application under Section 47, C.P.C. is ex facie unsustainable because the decree is standing in favour of the plaintiff and no steps have been taken to set it aside. On the strength of the decree, the plaintiff was authorised to have filed the above suits in order to prevent further transaction of the above land resulting in multiplicity of litigation. 6. I have considered the respective contentions. It is undisputed fact that the plaintiff has obtained a decree in respect of the land in question from the competent Court though ex parte and the same is still subsisting inasmuch as none has filed any proceeding to set it aside. It can also not be gainsaid that an application under Section 47, C.P.C. has been filed. I do not want to make any comment about the merits of the application but what I want to emphasise is that the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff of specific performance of the contract in respect of the above land is still subsisting. I do not want to make any comment about the merits of the application but what I want to emphasise is that the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff of specific performance of the contract in respect of the above land is still subsisting. In order to obtain complete relief in respect of the above decree, the plaintiff filed a suit asking the defendants to execute and get the sale deed registered in his favour, failing which the Court can get the above sale deed executed and registered in his favour on behalf of the defendants. The above decree arms the plaintiff with the necessary title to protect the land which is the subject-matter of the decree and he was, therefore, entitled to have filed suits against the petitioners. The learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in passing the impugned order dismissing the application filed by the petitioners under Section 10, C.P.C. The decree is still subsisting which confers on the plaintiff a right to get the sale deed registered in his favour in pursuance of the decree obtained by him. 7. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in these revisions petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.Revisions dismissed. *******