This revision is against the judgment and order dated 17.1.81 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge in Title Execution Case No. 2 of 1974 arising out of title Suit No. 13 of 1971. The petitioner raised an objection on the ground that the decree sought to be executed was not executable but his objection was rejected. This objection was taken at the time when Nazir went to the suit land for the purpose of execution of the decree passed in T.S. No. 18 of 1971. The objection raised by the present petitioner was rejected by the Assistant District Judge on the ground that the objector has no locus standi to resist the decree as he has not been dispossessed from any property. The same order was passed on 17.1.81. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has come to this Court for exercise of power under section 115 of the CPC. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party in the aforesaid T.S. No. 18 -if 1971. It is stated that the petitioner had. come to know the decree passed in the said suit at a subsequent stage and in fact it has been stated that he came to know when the Nazir came to the suit land to execute the decree. 3. Mr. M.A. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 17.1.81 passed in T.Ex.2 of 1974 is not sustainable in law. According to him the learned Court ought to have entered into his contention raise! in the objection. His further submission is that the objector has raised objection under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, and as such dispossession, is not necessary and that he could have taken valid objection within the purview of the aforesaid provisions of law. He further contends that since the counter objection was filed by the plaintiff respond­ent against the objection filed by the petitioner, the contentions of the respec­tive parties ought to have been entered into and disposed of in accordance with law. It has also been stated by the learned counsel that the learned Court should have taken objection filed by the petitioner as resistance and the counter objection filed by the plaintiff/ respondent should have been taken as objection to the said objection filed by the petitioner. It has also been stated by the learned counsel that the learned Court should have taken objection filed by the petitioner as resistance and the counter objection filed by the plaintiff/ respondent should have been taken as objection to the said objection filed by the petitioner. According to him the defendant is a person who stays far away from the suit land whereas the petitioner himself was residing in the suit premises at the relevant time. 4. Before I proceed further, it may be borne in mind that after the institution of suit some changes have been brought about by amendment in the provisions of the CPC. However, for the purpose of this petition, I would safely go by provisions as they were before amendment in 1976. 5. Mr. S. K. Senapati, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that as tar as the petitioner's objection is concerned, section 47 of the CPC is not applicable inasmuch as the petitioner was not a party to the suit. He further submits that the petitioner in fact may be taken as a third party and he came into picture only at time of execution of decree passed in the suit. His another submission is that since the petitioner is not without a remedy inasmuch as he could institute as separate suit if his right of enjoyment of certain premises is affected by the aforesaid judgment and decree. In view of this, the petitioner could not be allowed to take advantage of the objection filed within the purview of Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC. 6. Mr. Senapati has referred me to AIR 1965 Cal 51 , Gopal Chandra Sadhukhan vs. Sheikh Jamsed & another, wherein it was held that a third party or a person claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor or a person claiming bonafide to have right to be in such possession - one of these classes of persons have locus standi to make an independent application under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. Mr. Senapati has taken me through relevant portions of judgment particularly of paras 7 .to 9. Mr. Senapati has taken me through relevant portions of judgment particularly of paras 7 .to 9. lam of the view that since the petitioner was not a party in the suit he would have every right to vindicate his tight by instituting a separate suit. 7. On going through the impugned order dated 17.1.81, it appears to me that the petitioner had taken advantage regarding the execution of judgment and decree passed in the aforesaid suit. The petitioner resisted at the time of execution of the decree specially at the time when the Nazir came to the suit land for the purpose of execution of a decree If that is so, the petitioner's objection would not have been maintainable within the purview of O 21, R 97 of the CPC Therefore the only course open to the petitioner is to nave approached the competent civil Court by filing a separate civil suit. There was no reason why the petitioner should have remained silent after his objection was rejected. I am of the view that the petitioner could not have taken valid objection within the purview of the aforesaid provisions of Jaw inasmuch as the petitioner was not a party to the suit I find that the impugned order was passed after hearing the parties. In this view of the matter I do not see any infirmity in the impugned order. 8. In the result the petition fails and is rejected.