ORDER :- The judgment-debtor in O. S. 36/74 which was originally pending before the Alleppey Sub-Court and pending execution in Shertallai Sub-Court, is the revision petitioner. 2. In execution of the decree six items of properties were sold in court auction and the decree-holder purchased the same. The sale was confirmed on 20-11-1981. The sale certificate was issued on 29-6-1982. 3. The decree-holder purchaser thereafter applied for delivery of the properties. The petitioner at that stage filed E.A. 28/90 wherein he raised the following contentions: - The petitioner is entitled to get only 1/14 shares in the properties. That right alone was sold in public auction. The respondent thus has become the owner of the said right alone. As such the petitioner is only a co-owner in joint possession with the other co-owners. The decree-holder auction purchaser therefore can get only a symbolic delivery and not actual delivery of khas possession of the properties including the building. In support of this contention, the petitioner produced a copy of the decree in O.S. 40/72 of the Alleppey Sub-Court. 4. The court below after considering the various aspects of these contentions has by the order under challenge dismissed the application. 5. It is clear from the facts available on record that whatever right the judgment-debtor had over the properties, has been sold in execution of the decree. There cannot be any dispute about it. The above position notwithstanding, the judgment-debtor-petitioner has taken up the stand that he is entitled to contend that the only right the decree-holder auction purchaser could purchase in court auction was the right to institute a suit for partition and not to get actual delivery of the properties. In other words, the decree-holder-auction purchaser cannot be put in actual possession of the properties purchased by him in court auction. 6. This case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be agitated only by filing a petition under S. 47, C.P.C. In such cases the purchaser of the property at a sale in execution of the decree would be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree was passed. (See Explanation II of S. 47, C.P.C.). The learned counsel submits that the petitioner can therefore maintain the petition under S. 47, C.P.C. 7. (See Explanation II of S. 47, C.P.C.). The learned counsel submits that the petitioner can therefore maintain the petition under S. 47, C.P.C. 7. The Supreme Court, construing S. 47 has observed thus in Harnandrai v. Debidutt (AIR 1973 SC 2423) : - at page SC 2427; "It is important to remember that after the decision of the Privy Council in Ganapathy's case, 45 Ind App 54 : (AIR 1917 PC 121) there has been an amendment of S. 47 as a result of which the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree, whether he is the decree-holder or not, is unquestionably a party to the suit for the purpose of S. 47...........". The counsel therefore is well founded in this submission that all aspects pertaining to the dispute between the auction purchaser and the judgment-debtor require to be determined in a proceeding initiated under S. 47 and not by a separate suit. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the contentions raised by the petitioner in the E.A. are matters that can be considered and disposed of by the executing court because they relate to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. I am not impressed by this argument. The real question that arises for consideration here is, should the court go into the question whether the decree-holder court auction purchaser is entitled to get only a symbolic delivery at the instance of judgment-debtor-petitioner whose entire rights in the properties was admittedly sold in public auction. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner-judgment-debtor has the right to raise such a contention which concerns the nature of the rights purchased by the decree-holder, at the time of delivery of possession pursuant to the sale certificate. That a judgment-debtor has such a right cannot any more be disputed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Harnandrai's case. The Supreme Court has stated thus :- at page SC 2427; AIR1973. "......... Having regard to this consideration, if any question is raised by the judgment-debtor at the time of delivery of possession concerning the nature of the rights purchased and if the judgment-debtor offers any resistance to delivery of possession the question must be one which in our view relates to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree and arises between the parties to the suit." 9. May be that in certain cases the sale may not, however, extinguish the judgment-debtor's entire right in the properties, in that some rights are left behind. In such cases, the judgment-debtor can, but for S.47, institute a suit for declaration of that right and also for consequential relief. Such rights of the judgment-debtors can be agitated only in a proceeding initiated under S. 47 and not otherwise. Here in the case on hand as already noted, admittedly the rights of the judgment-debtor in the properties in their entirety have been sold in public auction. The decree-holder purchaser thus has stepped into the shoes of the judgment-debtor. Persons who can raise any objection in regard to delivery of khas possession at best be the persons who could claim to be the co-owners along with the decree-holder purchaser. 10. The judgment-debtor under the circumstances, in my view, has ceased to be the owner of the properties and if that be so, he has no interest to be salvaged. He therefore has no manner of right to resist physical delivery of the properties to the decree-holder purchaser. In this view of the matter, there is little scope to interfere with the order under challenge. C. R. P. fails. Accordingly the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.