JUDGMENT Kendall, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad dated the 20th June, 1932, disallowing an objection made by the judgment-debtor to the delivery of possession to the auction-purchaser. The auction-purchaser, who is the Respondent is a stranger to the suit in which the decree that has been executed was passed, and after the auction-purchase and the confirmation of the sale (to which the judgment-debtor had objected) he made an application under Order 21, Rule 97, to the Court on the ground that he was being resisted by the judgment-debtor, and it is in consequence of hat application of the auction-purchaser that the present order which is under appeal was passed under Order 21, Rule 98, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the Respondent that no appeal lies. There is no provision for an appeal in any of the clauses of Order 43, Rule 1. against an order passed under Order 21, Rule 93, but the Appellant's argument is that the proceedings are in execution of a decree and that S. 47 Code of CPC will apply. If Section 47 applies, no doubt an appeal will lie, but Section 47 only relates to questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives. It has already been explained that the auction-purchaser, who is the responded was not a party to the suit, and although he may be said to be a representative of one of the parties in that he has purchased the property of the judgment-debtor, he is a representative not of the decree-holder but of the judgment-debtor, and no question can therefore arise between him and the judgment-debtor such as is contemplated by Section 47. 3. It has be in held in the cases of Gulzari Lal v. Madho Ram (1904) 56 All. 447 : 1 A.L.J. 65 : 1904 A.W.N. 61 (F.B.), and Anandi Kunwari v. Ajudhia Nath (1908) 30 All. 379 : 5 A.L.J. 557 : 1908 A.W.N. 157, that in such a case the auction-purchaser is the representative of the judgment-debtor and in the later case it is distinctly stated that he is not in representative of the decree-holder, and in the case of Bhagnati v. Banwari Lal (1909) 31 All. 82 : 1 Ind. Cas. 379 : 5 A.L.J. 557 : 1908 A.W.N. 157, that in such a case the auction-purchaser is the representative of the judgment-debtor and in the later case it is distinctly stated that he is not in representative of the decree-holder, and in the case of Bhagnati v. Banwari Lal (1909) 31 All. 82 : 1 Ind. Cas. 416 : 6 A.L.J. 71 (F.B.), a Full bench decision, it was held by the majority that no appeal would lie against an order passed on a question raised in execution proceedings between the judgment-debtor and his representative. The result is that the preliminary objection must succeed and the appeal is there fore dismissed with costs.