JUDGMENT
P.K. Tripathy, J.
1. Order passed on March 20, 2001 by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhawanipatna in Execution Case No. 6 of 1996 in under challenge in this revision.
2. It appears from that order that, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) considered an application filed by the Decree- holder (opp. party No. 1 in this revision) in accordance with the provision under Order 21, Rule 95 read with Order 21, Rule 97 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’). It further appears from the impugned order that learned Civil Judge passed order allowing the prayer of the Decree- holder for Police protection at the time of delivery of possession if the decree-holder shall deposit cost in that respect. The impugned order also indicates that in that respect a letter has been addressed to the Superintendent of Police. That order is under challenge.
3. Keeping in view the interlocutory nature of the impugned order and the remedy which is available to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to go into the details of the dispute between the Decree-Holder and the Judgment Debtor (who is the opp. party No. 2 in this revision) nor relating to the circumstance under which different patches from the disputed premises were purchased by different persons including petitioner No. 1. Only for the sake of convenience this Court takes note of certain previous litigations dealt with and disposed of by this Court and thereafter shall pass, appropriate order on the impugned order which has been challenged by the present petitioners.
4. From the aforesaid narrations, it is thus clear that the petitioners are not the judgment-debtors nor they advance their claim through the Judgment-Debtor.
5. Admittedly, the Decree-Holder as the plaintiff obtained a money decree and put that decree into execution. To realise the decreetal dues one of the modes which he has employed is relating to sale of movables and immovable properties belonging to the judgment-debtor. In that context, the present petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Order 21, Rule 59 of the Code for stay of the Execution Proceeding till disposal of the application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 58 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code having been registered as Misc. Case No. 7 of 1999. On January, 30, 1999, learned Civil Judge made a contested disposal of that proceeding by dismissing the same. As against that, the present petitioner No. 1 preferred Misc. Appeal No. 646 of 1999, and this Court on January 27, 2000, disposed of that appeal. In paragraph-4 of that order this Court held as follows :
“4. The question as to whether there is a house on Plot No. 1509 is immaterial so far as the present appellant is concerned. It is clarified that the land purchased by the appellant under registered sale deed No, 257 of 1985 which is recorded as Hal Plot No. 1508 and the house standing on such land shall not be affected in any manner in the pending execution case No. 6 of 1996.
5. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the appeal is disposed of. The executing Court shall dispose of the execution case as early as possible. The L.C.R shall be sent back immediately.”
6. The Decree- Holder preferred Civil Revision No. 396 of 2001 as against the order passed on 23.8.2001 by the Civil Judge in the aforesaid execution case. Learned Civil Judge in that impugned order allowed the prayer for stay of the execution proceeding till disposal of M.J.C. No. 18 of 1999. In that M.J.C. the judgment-debtor had prayed for setting aside the decree. On July 24, 2002, this Court disposed of that Civil Revision. At that time this Court took note of the chequered career of the dispute. In that order this Court noted that award of the arbitrator made on November 20, 1995 in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 19,23,747/-was made rule of the Court by the Civil Court. The application to set aside that order was allowed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 349 of 1996 subject to the conditions that the defendants/ Judgment-debtors shall deposit a sum of rupees six lakhs within the stipulated period. The judgment-debtor being not able to deposit such amount in time, prayed for extension of time. Such time was extended and in spite of that the judgment-debtor failed to deposit under such circumstance the decree remained valid to be executed. The judgment-debtor also approached the Apex Court by filing S.LP. No. 6747 of 1997. On 9.9.1997 the Apex Court also directed the judgment- debtor to make payment of that amount (rupees six lakhs) within a period of ten days. The judgment-debtor did not comply with that direction. Under such circumstance, this Court allowed the Civil Revision No. 396 of 2001 by setting aside the order of stay granted by the Civil Judge.
7. At the outset of this judgment, this Court has already indicated the facts and circumstances leading to passing of the impugned order. This Court has clearly indicated that the order impugned is an interlocutory order. According to the provision in Rule 431 of the G.R. & C.O. (Civil) Volume-l, an application under Order 21, Rule 97 is to be registered as a Misc. case. The provision in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 read with Rules 98 and 101 makes it clear that the Civil Judge is to conduct an inquiry and to determine the question and to pass appropriate order on the relief claimed under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC. Under such circumstance, petitioner No. 2 in the present case being the person alleged to have resisted the writ for delivery of possession, he may ventilate his grievance in that proceeding, if pending, for appropriate adjudication. In that respect this Court expresses no opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioners save and except reiterating that as per the above quoted order in Misc. Appeal No. 646 of 1999 the executing Court cannot proceed with the property covered by the registered sale deed for Plot No. 1508 or the house standing thereon.
8. In the result, the Civil Revision stands dismissed without interfering with the impugned order being an interlocutory order. If the petitioner shall approach the Court below in accordance with law, then their contention be dealt with and considered keeping in view the earlier decisions of the Superior Courts so also the provision of law.