JUDGMENT
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. The petitioner is an ‘objector’ to the execution of a decree for eviction, passed against Dhanraj, since deceased, by learned Munsif & Judl. Magistrate, 1st Class, Deedwana on 16.11.1959 in favour of decree-holder Kishori Lal, which was affirmed by the first-appellate court on 27.7.1960 and Second appeal against that was dismissed by this court on 8.5.1963. Bhanwarlal, the present petitioner who is not a judgment-debtor and who claims to be in possession of the suit property in his own right, and not on behalf of the judgment debtor, is resisting the execution of decree, whenever the same have been sought to be executed. In the first instance, on an application moved by the non-petitioner decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 97, complaining about the obstruction and resistance put-forward by the present petitioner in execution of his decree, the application of the decree-holder was rejected by the executing-court on 27.2.1976. Thereafter, another application was moved for execution of the decree by the decree-holder. Again the execution of the same was resisted by the present petitioner and the decree-holder moved a second time an application under Order 21 Rule 97, complaining the obstruction and resistance to the decree by the petitioner Bhanwarlal, which was withdrawn by the decree-holder on 18.11.1978. Again, the decree of eviction has been sought to be executed by the decree-holder. Apprehending that the petitioner may be ejected in execution of said decree, to which he was not a party, by suppressing the aforesaid facts from the court, he has moved an application under Order 21, Rule 99, read with Section 151, CPC, invoking the executing court’s jurisdiction to decide his objection to execution. The executing court has rejected the application of the objector-petitioner, on the ground that he is not entitled to move an application under Order 21 Rule 99, as he is in possession of property and an application under Order 21, Rule 99, can be moved only by a person who has been dispossessed’ and not by a ‘person in possession’; and on that basis, the petitioner’s application has been rejected, as pre-mature. On earlier occasion also, a similar application by the present petitioner was rejected as pre-mature, by order dated 28.10.1985.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the executing court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by Law, by refusing to entertain petitioner’s objection-petition to the execution of decree under execution. He has further stated that even if his application was not liable to be entertained under Order 21 Rule 99, the application could have been entertained and appropriate directions could have been passed under Section 151, CPC. He places reliance on a decision of this court in Dargah Committee. v. Abdul Gafoor and Ann AIR 1976 Raj. 129.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent-decree-holder supports the order of the executing-court.
4. Having considered the rival contentions, of the parties, and examined the scheme of provisions of Order 21 regarding delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser of any property, and the procedure to be adopted where resistance to delivery of possession to the decree-holder or purchaser is raised, I am of the opinion, that the trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order.
5. Order 21 Rule 97 provides that where ‘the holder of a decree’ for the possession of immovable property, or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree, is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of any such property; the person entitled to possession of property under decree or purchase, may make an application to the court, complaining such resistance or obstruction, On such an application being made, the court is bound to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. In the adjudication, the court has to determine the question, that have been referred to under Order 21 Rule 101, namely, all questions including right, title and interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings, and upon determination of such questions referred to in Rule 101, the executing-court would pass an order in accordance with those findings and may also pass such other order in the circumstances of the case, as it may deem fit, under Order 21 Rule 98. Order 21 Rule 99 provides that where any person other than judgment-debtor is dis-possessed of the immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, or where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dis-possession. Such application; on having been made, has to be adjudicated in the like manner as an application under Order 21 Rule 97, is adjudicated.
6. From these provisions, it is apparent that whereas the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 are applicable to the applications which may be moved by a decree-holder or purchaser of the property sold in execution of a decree, Order 21 Rule 99 takes into consideration the circumstances where a person other than judgment-debtor is dispossessed of the immovable to the court complaining of his dispossession. However, a person who is in possession and obstructing or resisting the execution of a decree, has no occasion and right to move an application in execution proceedings for determination of his rights qua the property, subject matter of execution, until he is actually dispossessed. As a matter of fact, under the Scheme, it is apparent that a person raising objection to the execution of a decree and resisting the execution of decree; cannot be evicted unless his right, title and interest are determined, in the first place, on a complaint having been made by the decree-holder about such resistance. In that event, all questions including right, title and interest of the parties concerned are to be adjudicated. In case, where a person other than judgment debtor in possession fails to resist or obstruct at the time when decree for possession is being executed and he is in fact dispossessed in execution of the decree; then he gets right to complain against his dis-possession under Order 21 Rule 99, CPC. Thus, under the scheme of Order 21, it is apparent that no right is given to a person in possession, claiming himself entitled to obstruct the execution of a decree against him, to move an application for determination of his right while he is in possession; though such right can be determined on an application being moved by decree-holders, as and when he (objector) offers resistance to the execution of a decree.
7. My aforesaid view is also fortified by decisions of this Court in Smt. Dhapu and Ors. v. Nazar Mohammed and Ors. 1989 (2) RLR 605. The view that the third party cannot make an application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC for adjudication of his rights, is also fortified by a decision of this Court in Jai Prakash v. Khimaraj and Anr. .
8. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the executing-court under Revision can not be said to be suffering from any infirmity of jurisdiction.
9. However, it may be observed that while executing the decree in question, the facts about earlier applications under Order 21 Rule 97 and the decisions rendered thereon, may be kept in view before executing decree against the present petitioner, if he is found to be in possession.
10. With aforesaid observations, the Revision Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.