S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) A third party in an execution case is the petitioner in the present civil revision. ( 2 ) THIS is a case which supports the age-old saying that the suffering of the decree-holder commences after obtaining a decree. All endeavours of the legislation for early disposal fail in the circumstances to be indicated hereunder. ( 3 ) DISPUTE in this civil revision relates to a house in Cuttack town in front of Ravenshaw College. Ancestors of the decree-holder made an agreement with the owner of the house to purchase the same and filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Trial court decreed the suit for refund of the money advanced. During pendency of the appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment-debtor defendant sold the house to the judgment-debtor of the present decree-holder under execution. Appellate court allowed the appeal and directed recovery of possession from the defendant. Execution proceeding was initiated and the house was taken possession by the decree-holder. Present judgment-debtor filed an application in the executing court after delivery of possession that being lis pendens transferees they should not have been evicted. During pendency of the application, prosecution was launched against them for having committed trespass into the house which ended in conviction. After obtaining acquittal in appeal, they did not press their petition in the executing court. Since they continued in possession, the suit out of which the present decree under execution arises was filed in the year 1967 for title and recovery of possession. After a long contest from the year 1954, the decree-holders have been able to travel up to this stage facing various hurdles created by the judgment-debtors to be cleared. ( 4 ) EXECUTION case filed in the year 1978 has remained pending for nine years. At this stage when possession is to be delivered, the petitioner, a third party, has come up with a petition that he is a tenant of the house under the decree-holders and therefore, in place of actual physical delivery of possession by evicting him, symbolical possession be delivered under O. 21, R. 36 I. P. C. However, this application being one under S. 151 CPC for exercise of inherent power, the executing court considered the same and has rejected the petition. ( 5 ) NORMALLY, I would not have considered to interfere where a court in exercise of inherent power has rejected a prayer for which there is no vested right specially when the petitioner filed another earlier application in Feb. 1987 for the self-same relief which was rejected since copy of the same was not served on the decree-holders. I, however, find that the executing court has not approached the application in its right perspective. ( 6 ) PETITIONER claimed in the petition that he is the tenant in respect of the house under the decree-holder and is not liable to be evicted. Decree-holder filed objection denying the claim of the petitioner. In order to prove the case, petitioner has filed some rent receipts. It is true that there is no rent receipt granted by the petitioner. But some rent receipts are purported to have been granted by the father of the petitioner. Executing Court on consideration of the rent receipts held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the decree-holder. Even if there would be no relationship of landlord and tenant, in case of symbolical delivery of possession, the first question would be whether the petitioner is in possession of the house as claimed by him. If it is found that the petitioner is not in possession, the other questions become immaterial. In case it is found that the petitioner is in possession, the nature and character of his possession is to be considered. If it is found that the judgment-debtors have put the petitioner in possession, petitioner cannot claim to be protected from eviction. No judgment-debtor can defeat the claim of the decree holder by bringing third parties to possession. The question of possession by the petitioner as claimed by him has not at all been considered by the executing court. In that view of the matter the order suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. No judgment-debtor can defeat the claim of the decree holder by bringing third parties to possession. The question of possession by the petitioner as claimed by him has not at all been considered by the executing court. In that view of the matter the order suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. ( 7 ) IN the midst of hearing having taken a prima facie view as above, I suggested to the learned counsel of the petitioner that the house being in front of Ravenshaw College and the petitioner having claimed to be a tenant under the Orissa House Rent Control Act and he having approached the House Rent Controller to fix fair rent of the house, I will permit him to continue in the house subject to payment of provisional rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month till a time to be fixed to file a civil suit to get a declaration of relationship of landlord and tenant which is denied by the decree-holder. When Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted some time to get instruction, Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the decree holder did not agree for the adjournment and submitted that the decree-holder has been deprived of possession by the judgment debtor for long and, therefore, in view of the conduct of the petitioner, the matter should be finally decided. In case some material would have been on record that the petitioner has been set up by the judgment-debtor, I would not have interfered in, the matter since the petitioner after deprivation of possession of the house could have raised objection under O. 21, R. 58 CPC and on ultimate success could have got restitution. However, in the objection such question was not raised. At the time of hearing before the executing court no such submission was made. In case petitioner is proved to be a tenant in respect of the house either under the decree-holder or under any person other than the judgment debtor, there is no scope for his eviction otherwise than under S. 7 of the Orissa House Rent Control Act. Merely because, the petitioner has not been able to prove that he is a tenant under the decree holder, he cannot be evicted unless he is a tenant under the judgment debtor or some one who is bound by the decree. Merely because, the petitioner has not been able to prove that he is a tenant under the decree holder, he cannot be evicted unless he is a tenant under the judgment debtor or some one who is bound by the decree. Although the enquiry for exercise of inherent jurisdiction would be summary in nature, these aspects of the matter are to be kept in mind. ( 8 ) PETITIONER guilty of laches for prolonging the litigation to the suffering of the decree-holders. In case the first application would have been prosecuted, the matter could have been decided by now. Mr. Misra rightly pointed out that the decree-holder is prejudiced by the prolongation of litigation by the petitioner. This prejudice can be mitigated in case petitioner pays a cost of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) within seven days from today in the executing court to the decree holder. On being satisfied that the cost as directed has been paid within the stipulated time, executing court shall give opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their respective claims. The petitioner, if so advised, may amend his petition by incorporating the documents filed in such petition and explaining them. The decree-holders shall also be given opportunity to file a detailed objection, if so advised. In order to expedite the disposal any application or objection filed without copy being served on the other side or in case of assertion of refusal filed in court with costs for service of the same by special messenger, shall not be taken into consideration and the proceeding shall be disposed of in accordance with law. The enquiry, if conducted shall be concluded before the x-mas holidays commence and the execution proceeding shall proceed in accordance with the result of the enquiry. If the costs of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) as indicated above is not paid within one week from today, the application under S. 151 CPC filed by the petitioner shall stand dismissed without further reference to Bench. ( 9 ) IN the result, the civil revision is allowed to the extent indicated above. There would be no order as to costs. Documents filed in this Court be returned. Order accordingly. .