JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This revisional application is directed against an order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack dismissing an application under Order 21, Rule 99 and Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The material facts are briefly these: The disputed properties originally belonged to opposite party No. 2 Dharanidhar Das, who mortgaged the same with the Cuttack City Co-operative Building Society, Limited by a registered deed of mortgage dated 6-4-1960. On 27-6-1966, an award was passed by the Co-operative Society against opposite party No. 2 on the basis of the deed of mortgage. In execution of the award the disputed properties were put to auction and were purchased by the Petitioner on 29-4-1975. He took delivery of possession of the same on 15.12.1976. On 6-9-1968. opposite party No. 1 Sailja Kumar Bhatacharya had obtained a money decree against the opposite party No. 2 and in execution of that decree, the disputed properties had been put to auction and purchased by opposite party No. 3 on 19-3-1969, A writ of delivery of possession under Order 21, Rule 95, CPC was issued in favour of the opposite party No. 3 on 26-2-1977. On 1-5-1977, the process server returned the writ unexecuted and reported that he could not execute the writ due to want of identifier and drumer and that on enquiry he learnt that the judgment-debtor Dharanidhar Das was not residing in the house of the disputed land and that the Petitioner Gouri Charan Mohanty was residing there having purchased the same in Court auction. 3. On 10-5-1977 the Petitioner filed an application under Order 21, Rule 99 and Section 151, CPC alleging that he was in possession of the properties by virtue of his purchase in Court-action and that opposite party No. 3 was not entitled to take delivery of possession on the strength of his purchase in the Court-auction held on 19-3-1969. He prayed for an enquiry into the matter and for recalling the writ of delivery of possession. Opposite party No. 3 challenged the maintainability of the application and contended that his title to the properties could not be affected by any subsequent sale of the properties in favour of the Petitioner. 4. After enquiry, the Court below came to hold that the application under Order 21, Rule 99 and Section 151, CPC was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed the same. 4. After enquiry, the Court below came to hold that the application under Order 21, Rule 99 and Section 151, CPC was not maintainable, and accordingly dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the Petitioner has come up in revision. It was urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the legal position has been misconceived by the Court below. 5. Order 21, Rule 99, CPC provides as follows: 99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser: (1) 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. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.... On a plain reading of the above provisions it is clear that unless the applicant is dispossessed of the property he has no cause of action to apply under Order 21, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure. By the date on which the application was filed, the opp. party No. 3 had not been put -in possession. He had simply applied for being put in possession of the property, and the prayer was made only against the judgment-debtor (opp. party No. 2). He never prayed that the Petitioner be ejected from the property. The Petitioner had, therefore, no cause of action whatsoever for filing the application under Order 21, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure. Of course, if he were actually dispossessed of the property it would have been open to him to come forward with an application under Order 21, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure. His application would then have been enquired into. His application was premature. The executing Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the application as not maintainable. 6. The point has already been well settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nityananda Kanango Vs. Sm. His application would then have been enquired into. His application was premature. The executing Court was, therefore, justified in dismissing the application as not maintainable. 6. The point has already been well settled by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nityananda Kanango Vs. Sm. Pala Dei, wherein It was held that the Court could not anticipate the position contemplated by Order 21, Rule 97, CPC and investigate the claim of the prospective resisters, and that the Court could not exercise any such anticipatory jurisdiction to enquire into the question of title of a third party prospective obstructor in an application by him before he had in fact been dispossessed and that such an application was not maintainable u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. 7. Mr. B. Misra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner advanced the contention that since the Court below held an enquiry and both the parties took part in such enquiry, it must be held that the proceedings were taken at the instance of the opp. party No. 3 under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC He invited my' attention to the Court's order dated 29-6-1977 and the decision reported in AIR 1931 13 (Lahore), Kanshi Nath v. Chakar Dhar AIR 1234 Lah 193 (1) and Motamarii Ramaiah and Others Vs. Malliah and Others, 8. Rule 97 of Order 21 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 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 and the Court shall, where any such application is made, proceed to adjudicate upon the application. The rule makes it clear that it is only the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property or the purchaser of such property in Court auction who can make an application when resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of that property. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 97 contemplates actual resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession. According to Sub-rule (2), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate only when an application it made complaining of resistance or obstruction. The Court cannot suo motu make an adjudication. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 97 contemplates actual resistance or obstruction to delivery of possession. According to Sub-rule (2), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate only when an application it made complaining of resistance or obstruction. The Court cannot suo motu make an adjudication. The person who is resisted or obstructed in taking delivery of possession must complain under this rule by an application. In the present case, on the date when the process server went with the writ of delivery of possession there was no resistance or obstruction caused by anybody. The report of the process server-Ext.1(a)-shows that possession could not be delivered due to absence of identifier and drumer, There was no attempt made by the process server to delivery possession and hence the question of any obstruction or resistance in delivering possession by anybody did not arise. Since there was no obstruction or resistance to delivery of possession and no application was filed by opp. party No. 3. auction purchaser complaining of any obstruction or resistance the Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of title and possession over the disputed property on the application filed by a third party prospective obstructor. 9. The view 1 take finds support from a Bench decision of our parent High Court in the case of Janki Mohan and Another Vs. Dr. S. Samaddar and Others. In that case, a third party had filed an application under Order 21, Rule 58, CPC which was subsequently treated as one under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC Later on, a prayer was made for treating the application as one u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships held: In our opinion the application of the Petitioners is premature because there is no application under Order 21, Rule 97 of the CPC on behalf of the decree-holder alleging that there was resistance or obstruction made by the third party in obtaining possession of the property, Unless and until the decree holder makes such an allegation under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there is no locus standi on the part of the Petitioner to move the executing Court for adjudication of their claim of title or possession over the disputed property. There are specific provisions in Order 21, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure, providing in what manner claims of third parties with regard to possession of immovable property are to be adjudicated by the executing Court. In view of these specific provisions it is not open to the Petitioners to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.... The above decision was followed in a subsequent decision of the Patna High Court in Manulal Singhania Vs. Natwar Lal Thakur and Others. It was held that a claimant's application for adjudication of his claim of title and possession over the disputed property before an allegation of resistance or obstruction on his part made by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code is premature and has got to be dismissed without any enquiry. 10. The cases relied upon by the Petitioner's counsel are distinguishable on facts. 11. AIR 1931 13 (Lahore), when the decree-holder took proceedings for execution of the decree for possession obtained by him, he was resisted by the Appellants who claimed to be in possession of the property on their own rights. The Appellants presented an application to the executing Court praying that the decree-holder should be directed to apply for an investigation under Order 21, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure. To this application, the decree-holder replied that he should be given possession in terms of the decree obtained BY him and the objectors should be directed to seek their remedy as they thought best. The executing Court recorded an order that a dead lock had arisen and the only way out of it was to hold an investigation under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC as if the Court had been moved by the decree-holder complaining of resistance or obstruction to his obtaining possession. An investigation was consequently held and a finding was given against the decree-holder who thereafter filed a suit under Order 21, Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure. The Defendants took the plea that the suit did not lie because there was no application by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97 and as such the proceedings taken by the Court were void. The trial Court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. The Defendants took the plea that the suit did not lie because there was no application by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 97 and as such the proceedings taken by the Court were void. The trial Court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge disagreed with the trial Court holding that an investigation had actually been made under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC and therefore a suit under Rule 103 was maintainable. He, therefore, remanded the suit for trial to the original Court. The Defendants preferred an appeal to the Lahore High Court against the order of the District Judge. The High Court took notice of the fact chat after the executing Court had expressed its intention to hold an investigation, both parties took part in such investigation and thus they acquiesced in the investigation and this was tantamount to a consent and an implied application by the decree-holder to hold an investigation. It was, accordingly, held that it was not open to the Appellant to plead to the contrary. In Kanshi Nath v. Chakar Dhar AIR 1234 Lah 193 (1), the bailiff had submitted a report complaining of the obstruction to delivery of possession and the decree-holder's counsel was present when the bailiff's report was placed before the Court. Although it is not clear from the narration of facts as to what further steps had been taken by the decree-holder, yet the Court observed that it was reasonable to hold that the further proceedings were taken at the instance of the decree-holder. In Motamarii Ramaiah and Others Vs. Malliah and Others, the Respondents had actually obstructed delivery of the possession and the bailiff of the Court had reported about the obstruction. In presence of decree-holder, the Court directed delivery of the unobstructed one-third of the land and directed an enquiry regarding the right claimed by the Respondents in the obstructed two-thirds land. The decree-holders filed a counter. In the counter, they not only met the case of the Respondents by pleadings but also prayed for possession being delivered to them. In fact, the content of this counter was substantially what they would have mentioned in a petition under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC if they had filed one. The decree-holders filed a counter. In the counter, they not only met the case of the Respondents by pleadings but also prayed for possession being delivered to them. In fact, the content of this counter was substantially what they would have mentioned in a petition under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC if they had filed one. The decree-holders did not raise the plea that the objection petition a was not maintainable and ought to be dismissed, as it did not he under Order 21, Rule 97, Code of Civil Procedure. They completely co-operated with the Court in holding the full enquiry and adduced evidence. When an order was first passed in their favour, they self content with it. The Respondents took the matter in revision to the High Court. When the High Court set aside the order of the lower Court and directed a fresh order to be passed, even then, the decree holders did not raise any objection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. After the second order was passed and they found it to be not in their favour, they filed the revisional application against that order. In the revisional application they raised the question of non-maintainability of the proceedings. In the particular facts and circumstances of the case, their Lordships observed that the Courts will not permit a party to lie by or act in an indicisive manner, so as to obtain the benefit of the order, if it is in his favour, and endeavour to set it aside, if it is not. Their Lordships also laid down that under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC only the decree-holder can file an application complaining of resistance or obstruction which can result in an investigation by the Court, but an obstructor, who is not a party to the decree under execution, cannot approach the Court with an application to determine and safe-guard his rights or to obtain an order in his favour under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC or any other provision of Jaw. It was further held that if a third party files such an application impleading the decree-holder it would be open to the decree-holder to contend that such an application does not lie, and that the third party cannot ask for an enquiry in the matter or relief. If he so contends, the application will have to be dismissed. It was further held that if a third party files such an application impleading the decree-holder it would be open to the decree-holder to contend that such an application does not lie, and that the third party cannot ask for an enquiry in the matter or relief. If he so contends, the application will have to be dismissed. But, if instead of raising such an objection, the decree-holder files a counter and takes part in the proceedings and if an order is passed in the proceedings, the order would be valid just as if the counter which he filed was an application filed by him under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC and as if the application which had been filed by the third party had been a counter filed by such third party. 12. In the present case, there was no obstruction or resistance to delivery of possession. No doubt the opp. party No. 3 filed a counter to the application under Order 21, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure, but therein he specifically challenged the maintainability of the application. The Court's order dated 29-6-1977 to which my attention has been invited also shows that the Advocate for the opp. party No. 3 moved the Court for bearing on the question of maintainability of the application, but the Court directed the case to be heard on merits. The relevant portion of the order runs as follows: Order No. 253 dt. 22-6-1977: Both parties filed hazira. Adv. for the O.P. Imoves for hearing on the question of maintainability But the Adv. for the Petitioner prays for hearing the entire Misc. case on merit. Heard. The entire Misc. case be heard on merit on the next date to which the Adv. for the O.P. agrees.... Thus, it will be seen that the opp. party moved the Court to decide the question of maintainability of the application. But since the Court directed that the case should be heard on merits, the Advocate for the opposite party agreed to such hearing on the next date. No doubt, the parties led evidence at the enquiry, but unlike the facts of the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the Court did not decide the case on merits and dismissed the same on the ground of non-maintainability. No doubt, the parties led evidence at the enquiry, but unlike the facts of the case of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the Court did not decide the case on merits and dismissed the same on the ground of non-maintainability. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner are of no assistance to him. 13. In view of my foregoing discussions, the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is devoid of any force. There is no merit in the Civil Revision and it is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed