JUDGMENT G.D. Sahgal, J. - The applicant along with another obtained a decree for sale of a certain house property against opposite party No. 2. The property was put up for sale and the applicant-alone, among the degree-holders, purchased that property. After having purchased the property as auction purchaser he moved an application under 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the judgment-debtor was in possession of the property through one Sri G.H. Jafri opposite party No. 1 who was to be removed from possession of that property. This application was moved on the 27th of May, 1966. On the 3rd of October, 1966, the court ordered that delivery of possession be made by putting the applicant in possession and a warrant for delivery of possession was issued for that purpose Before the warrant could be executed, however opposite party No. 1 G H Jafri came to court and moved an application before it praying that he being the tenant of the premises the order for actual delivery of possession be recalled and the applicant directed to apply for symbolic possession. An objection was filed by the applicant auction purchaser against this application of opposite party No. 1 and among other pleas in the objection, it was claimed that opposite party No. 1 bad no locus standi to present the application and that the court was not competent to decide the dispute at that stage. He also pleaded that the order of allotment in favour of opposite party No. 1 on the basis of which he claimed to be the tenant was not a valid order and that he was not the tenant of the house in suit and even if he was in occupation of the house with even the consent of the judgment-debtor it did not amount to a contract of tenancy. The learned Civil Judge decided that objection in favour of opposite party No. 1 and passed an order to the effect that the application of the auction purchaser for actual delivery of possession be dismissed and the warrant for possession be withdrawn. The learned Civil Judge decided that objection in favour of opposite party No. 1 and passed an order to the effect that the application of the auction purchaser for actual delivery of possession be dismissed and the warrant for possession be withdrawn. During the course of his judgment the learned civil Judge accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that this was no stage for opposite party No. 1 to file the objection but he went on to observe that once an objection is raised to the auction purchaser's right to take possession than it was the bounden duty of the court to investigate the said right, there being no specific provision of law under which the objection should be thrown out, It is in these circumstances that the applicant auction purchaser has come to this court in revision under section 115 of the civil Procedure code. 2. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that the application of opposite party No. 1 before the learned Civil Judge was not maintainable at that stage and the learned Civil Judge acted without Jurisdiction in accepting and deciding the points raised therein. In order to appreciate this argument, certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have to be looked into. 3. Order 21 Rule 45 provides, "where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the Judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or some person claiming under a title created by the Judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under rule 94 the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same." 4. In this case a certificate was granted to the applicant under rule 94. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to move an application under 21 Rule 95. In this case a certificate was granted to the applicant under rule 94. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to move an application under 21 Rule 95. In the application, that he moved, he stated that the judgment debtor vas in possession of the property through opposite party No. J. Under rule 95, the court could order delivery to be made by putting the purchaser or his nominee in possession if the property sold was in the occupancy of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf, the third alternative, namely, the property being in possession of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property being not applicable in this case as the property was not attached but was being sold under a decree for sale. Before issuing an order for delivery to be made, it was, therefore, the duty of the court to be satisfied that a certificate under rule 94 had been granted to the applicant and that the property was in the occupancy of the judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf. The rule does not provide for any notice being issued to the person against whom possession is claimed but apparently there is no bar if, before an order is passed for the delivery to be made which order is carried out by the issuing of a warrant to the amin for delivery of possession, the person against whom such an application had been made or any one else to come to Court and say that the property was not in possession of such a person as is contemplated under rule 95 and that it was in possession of a person who is neither the judgment debtor nor a person claiming on behalf of the judgment debtor nor a person claiming under a title created by the judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of the property, for by coming to court such a person would be only assisting the court in deciding as to whether the court should order delivery to be made by putting the purchaser or his nominee in possession. But if no such objection is made, regarding which them is no specific provision, and order is passed for delivery of possession then the person to whom warrant has been issued for execution to arrange for actual delivery of possession being made and under rule 96 in case the property sold is in the occupancy of a tenant or other person entitled to occupy the same to arrange for delivery being made by affixing a copy of the certificate of sale in some conspicuous place on the property, and proclaiming to the occupant by beat of drum or other customary mode, at some convenient place, that the interest of the judgment debtor has been transferred to the purchaser, that is, arrange for delivery to be made by what is known in the eye of law symbolic possession, there is no occasion for any such objection. In the instant case the court had already passed an order for delivery of possession being made on the application made by the auction purchaser, there was, therefore, no occasion for any objection being made like the one made in this case. The procedure contemplated under rule 97 has to be followed in such a case. 5. 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 the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. The Court shall fix a day for investigating the matter and shall summon, the party, against whom the application is made, to appear and answer the same. The occasion for the applicability of this rule arises when the delivery of possession is resisted or obstructed by any person. Opposite party No. 1 having not come before the court at the stage before the issue of the order for delivery of possession, could certainly resist or obstruct delivery of possession and in that case put the applicant auction purchaser to the remedy under 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. Opposite party No. 1 having not come before the court at the stage before the issue of the order for delivery of possession, could certainly resist or obstruct delivery of possession and in that case put the applicant auction purchaser to the remedy under 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. Instead, opposite party No. 1 thought it fit to come to court as an objector against the application under Order 21, Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure though that application had already been disposed of by an order for delivery of possession being passed. The learned Civil Judge was, therefore right when he held that the stage at which the objection was raised was not the stage for raising the same but he still thought it fit to enter into the merits of the objection. 6. The view that an objection could be filed against the application under Order 21 Rule 95 of the Civil Procedure Code, before an order was passed by the court for the delivery of possession, is supported by the opinion of the two Judges out of three in a Full Bench case Sobha Ram v. Tulsi Ram, (AIR 1924 Allahabad 495). But that authority does not go to the length of holding that such an objection could be filed even after an order for delivery of possession has been made. If such an order has been made, the only remedy for opposite party No. 1 was by way of resistance or obstruction to the delivery of possession so as to compel the auction purchaser to come to court under 21 Rule 97 for the investigation of the matter. The law further provides under 21 Rule 99 that if the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person other than the judgment debtor, claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property or his own account or on account of some person other than the judge Bent debtor, the application under Order 21, Rule 95 has to be dismissed. 7. 7. The order that has been passed in the instant case cannot be treated as an Order passed finder Order 21, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such an order could be passed only on an application of the auction purchaser under 21 Rule 97 and not on any objection of a third party like opposite party No. 1. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, relies on an authority of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Motomari Remiah and others, v. Kumari Maliah and others, AIR 1962 Andhra Pradesh 72. for the contention that this decision could be treated as one made on an application under 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code and as such is not revisable having been passed by the Court concerned under a jurisdiction which it had. A perusal of that authority, however, would show that the application by the third party, who came to court by means of an objection impleading the auction purchaser against the decree holder, who had moved the application under 21 Rule 97, was not resisted on the ground that the application did not lie but instead the decree-holder himself filed a counter and took part in the proceedings in the hope that the proceedings would end in his favour and against the third party. In such circumstances it was held that the counter filed by the decree-holder should be treated as an application filed under 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case, however, the auction-purchaser did raise an objection heat the application of opposite party No. 1 did not lie and it was only in the alternative, in case the court came to a contrary conclusion, that he pleaded that opposite party No. 1 was not a tenant. The Andhra case is therefore distinguishable and does not apply and in no view of the law can the objection of the application to the application of opposite party No. 1 before the Civil Judge be treated to be an application under 21 Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. Thus the application of opposite party No. 1 being not maintainable at the stage at which it was moved, the court had no jurisdiction in entertaining it and disposing it of and ultimately deciding the matter against the applicant. 8. Thus the application of opposite party No. 1 being not maintainable at the stage at which it was moved, the court had no jurisdiction in entertaining it and disposing it of and ultimately deciding the matter against the applicant. The application is in these circumstances, allowed with costs and the order of the learned Civil Judge set aside. It will be open to opposite party No. 1 to resist or obstruct the delivery of possession so as to compel the applicant to come to Court under 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure.