JUDGMENT
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. This is a second appeal under Order 21, Rule 103, Civil Procedure Code, against an order rejecting the application under Order 21, Rule 100, C. P. C., as not maintainable.
2. The applicant is a third party. He filed an application for setting aside the delivery of possession of plot No. 1417 which was not the subject-matter of the decree. The executing Court on the basis of materials held that the allegation in the application that portion of plot No. 1417 was delivered is not correct. In appeal by the applicant, it was . held by the appellate Court that plot No. 1417 not being the subject-matter in the decree the application is not maintainable.
3. A bare perusal of Rules 99 and 100 of Order 21, C. P. C, as per the amendment of the Code in 1976 makes it clear that the application is entertainable only where the property is covered under the decree. On the admitted position that plot No. 1417 was not a part of the property involved in the decree, the appellate Court was justified to held that the application is not entertainable.
4. When an application is not maintainable, an enquiry under such application to give findings of fact either way would not bind the parties. They cannot be any assistance to either party nor would such findings prejudice any party. The parties are to work out their remedies available under the law. Where the authority having jurisdiction is required to consider the dispute independently without being influenced by the finding in a proceeding not entertainable.
5. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed subject to the observation made relating to the effect of the findings on an application which was not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs.