Short Note : 1. Fact which are not in dispute are thus: In Civil Suit No. 88-A of 1975, the non-applicant Subhashchandra obtained a decree for eviction against the non-applicant No.2 Narayanji from the Court of the Second Civil Judge Class II Ujjain. An appeal against that decree was dismissed on 21-1-1978. The decree-holder then applied for the execution of this decree on 24-11-1978 and applied for a warrant of possession of the decretal premises. The applicant, who is the son of the judgment-debtor Narayanji approached the executing Court with two applications (i) Dt. 19-7-78 and (ii) Dt. 20-7-78. In both these applications it was stated that, he was in possession of the disputed house in his own right; that he was not bound by the decree passed against his father, the judgment-debtor Narayanji: that he had learnt about process for possession being issued in execution of which he is likely to be evicted from the disputed premises and that in these circumstances the Warrant of possession be cancelled. The learned executing Court treating both these applications as made under rule 97 of Order of Civil Procedure Code took the view that the objection raised by the applicant was not maintainable and that his applications were liable to be rejected. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. The learned counsel contended that after the applicant had approached the execution Court with the aforesaid two applications the executing Court should have made an inquiry and should have disposed of the applications in the manner in which they disposed of in this case. In my opinion, this revision application is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds. Held: The impugned order was passed on 10-2-1978 and before the learned lower Court it was assumed that the said applications were made under rule 97 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code. In the light of the provisions of rules 97, 100, 101 and 103 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that the order passed before such decree is a subject to the same conditions, as to appeal or otherwise. In the light of the provisions of rules 97, 100, 101 and 103 of Order 21, Civil Procedure Code, it is clear that the order passed before such decree is a subject to the same conditions, as to appeal or otherwise. The learned counsel for the applicant frankly conceded that against the impugned order a separate appeal has been filed by the applicant before the appropriate Court and that the applicant will pursue his remedy of appeal in the Court in which the appeal has been filed by him. Since, in my opinion, in the light of aforesaid provisions, the impugned order is appealable, the present revision application is not competent and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Revision dismissed.