ORDER
Chandrashekaraiah, J.
1. This civil revision petition is by the decree-holder in H.R.C. Nos. 13 and 16 of 1994 challenging the order dated 28-11-2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Davanagere in Misc. Nos. 8 and 9 of 1998 allowing the application filed by the first respondent herein under Order 21, Rules 98(1)(a), 99 and 100 read with Section 151 of the CPC.
2. The petitioners being the decree-holders in H.R.C. Nos. 13 and 16 of 1994 instituted execution proceedings for possession of the schedule premises. In the said proceedings, the petitioners have taken possession on 10-3-1998. The case of the first respondent is that he is the owner in possession of the property and he has been illegally dispossessed in execution of the said decree even though there is no decree against him in the original H.R.C, proceedings. Therefore, the respondent 1 has made an application under Order 21, Rules 98(1)(a), 99 and 100 read with Section 151 of the CPC for restoration of possession. The said application has been allowed by the learned Civil Judge by the impugned order.
3. Learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable in law since it is an appealable order under Order 21, Rule 103 of the (JPC.
4. On the other hand, learned Counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that the civil revision petition is maintainable since no application could be entertained by the Trial Court after the disposal of the execution proceedings. In view of these rival contentions, the question that arises for my consideration is.–
“Whether the civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable or not on the facts and circumstances of the case?”
5. Order 21, Rule 98 provides for adjudication that upon the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101, the Court shall, in accordance with such determination and subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (2) make an order allowing the application and directing that the applicant be put into the possession of the property or dismissing the application.
6. The complaint of the respondent is that even though he is the lawful owner in possession of the property, he has been dispossessed of his immovable property, even though there is no decree against him. Rule 99 of Order 21 provides for “Where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of 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 dispossession”.
7. Under the provisions referred to above, if the respondent has been dispossessed from immovable property and being not judgment-debtor, he may make an application seeking for possession of the property. Therefore, I find no substance in the contention of the learned Counsels for the petitioner that no application could be entertained for any relief after the disposal of the execution proceedings and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.
8. Order 21, Rule 100 provides for determination of the question referred to in Rule 101. Order 21, Rule 101 confers power on the Court to consider all questions including the question relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings on an application filed under Rule 97 or 99. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the respondent, even though he is not a judgment-debtor made an application under Rules 97, 98, 101 and 103 of Order 21 of the CPC complaining of dispossession from the immovable property, even though he is the lawful owner in possession of the property. The said question has now been considered by the Trial Court and determined that he is the owner in possession of the property and he has been unlawfully dispossessed though there is no decree against him under Order 21, Rule 100. Order 21, Rule 103 reads as follows.–
“Where any application has been adjudicated upon under Rule 98 or 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree”.
9. Prom the reading of the said rule, it is clear that an order passed under Order 21, Rule 98 or 100 is a decree and it is an appealable order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that this civil revision petition filed under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable in law as the impugned order is an appealable order. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The civil revision petition is rejected. However, it is open for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order by way of an appeal if he is so advised.