JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the Additional Civil Judge No.1. Jodhpur dated 19-12-1990 by which he has stayed the proceedings in the execution case No.7/89 Govind Das v. Dayaram till the disposal of the Misc. Case No.6 of 1990, Babulal v. Govind Das . The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. In the year 1973, the plaintiff-Govind Das filed a suit for ejectment against the defendant Dayaram. It was decreed on March 13, 1984. Appeals preferred by the defendant were dismissed. Execution application No. 7/89 was moved by the plaintiff-decree-holder. The objector Babulal moved an application under Sections 47,151 and Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C. stating that the decree-holder has agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs. 85,000/-, he has paid Rs. 70,000/- in advance to him, he has delivered its possession to him and he has executed an agreement for sale in his favour. He also stated that Rs.90,000/- has also been paid by him to Ajgar Khan and Aslam Khan who had purchased the suit property from the judgment-debtor Dayaram through sales deed dated 26-6-1985. The objection-petition was registered as Misc. Case No. 6/90. He also moved an application for the stay of the execution proceedings. The decree-holder filed his reply to the said objection petition and stay application stoutly traversing all their allegations and stating that the objector has no locus standi to file objection petition and stay application. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1. Jodhpur has stayed the execution proceedings by its order under challenge. 3. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the order of the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur is without jurisdiction, the objector Babulal was not a party in the suit, he is a stranger in the execution case, and he cannot, therefore, invoke the provisions of Section 47, C.P.C. He further contended that the attention of the learned Additional Civil Judge was specifically invited towards the decision of this Court given in Madanlal v. Hansraj, AIR 1985 Raj. 19 and he did not care to refer it in his order under challenge and follow it. 19 and he did not care to refer it in his order under challenge and follow it. He also contended that the objector's case that the suit property has been sold by the judgment-debtor to Ajgar Khan and Alam Khan and they have in turn sold it to the objector Babulal is of no consequence as he being successor-in-title of the judgment-debtor is bound with the decree which has been passed against the judgment-debtor Day a Ram. He also contended that the story of the objector that the decree-holder has agreed to sell the suit property for Rs. 85,000/- to him (objector), he accepted Rs. 70,000/- from him and he has executed an agreement for sale in his favour is totally false, no agreement has been executed in his favour, he never agreed to sell the suit property and the agreement for sale set up is a forged document and these facts were not at all disclosed by him to the sale-amin when he went to execute the warrant for delivery of possession on 3-10-1989. He relied upon Madan Lal v. Hansraj (supra) and Smt. Sri Devi v. Kashiram, 1984 R.L.R. 121 and 1988 (1) W.L.N. 330 . 4. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the objector non-petitioner that the revision petition is not maintainable, the learned trial court has not committed any material irregularity or illegality in passing the order under challenge, the agreement executed by the decree-holder amounts to an assignment of the decree within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 16, C.P.C., the objector is not a third party and his objection under Section 47 is perfectly maintainable. 5. There is substance in the revision petition. The agreement for sale set up by the objector has stoutly been denied by the decree-holder. Even assuming that it has been executed by the decree-holder, it does not go to confer any right on the objector as admittedly it has no reference of the decree under execution. 5. There is substance in the revision petition. The agreement for sale set up by the objector has stoutly been denied by the decree-holder. Even assuming that it has been executed by the decree-holder, it does not go to confer any right on the objector as admittedly it has no reference of the decree under execution. When there is no reference of the decree under execution, there is no question of its assignment within the meaning of Order XXI, Rule 16, C.P.C. and also about the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of Section 47, C.P.C. Section 54, Transfer of Property Act provides that a contract for sale of an immovable property does not, of itself, create an interest in, or charge on, such property. As such the explanation given under Rule 16 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure is also not applicable in this case as the objector is not a transferee of rights in the suit property. The decree-holder has categorically denied the execution of the agreement for sale set up by the objector and receipt of Rs. 70,000/-. These facts were not disclosed by the objector when the Sale Amin went to the suit property to execute warrant for delivery of possession on October 3, 1989. The facts of Smt. Sri Devi v. Kashi Ram (supra) are similar to the present case. In it Smt. Sri Devi set up a case that the decree-holder has entered into an agreement for sale in her favour in respect of the suit property and as such she cannot be dispossessed in execution of the decree passed against the judgment-debtor. She was held to be a stranger and her objections were repelled. It has been observed in para No.6 of this case as follows: "I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I find considerable force in the submissions of Shri P.C. Mathur. She was held to be a stranger and her objections were repelled. It has been observed in para No.6 of this case as follows: "I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and I find considerable force in the submissions of Shri P.C. Mathur. It may be observed that Smt. Shri Devi, in my opinion, has absolutely no locus standi to raise any objection in the execution proceedings and that she cannot be heard on the point that the application for execution is not valid, as it does not fulfil the requirements of Rule 15 of Or.21, C.P.C. I have an occasion to consider the question in (3) Madanlal v. Hansraj, S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 418/80, decided on 14-9-1983 , as to whether the stranger has any right to move the executing court in connection with raising objections against the execution of the decree. That question was considered in the light of the provisions of Order 21, Rule 97, C.P.C., as well as Or.21, Rule 36, C.P.C. It was observed in that case, as under: "If the legislature had intended, it could have granted a right to the obstructions to maintain as an obstruction petition or could have made it imperative for the decree-holder to move an application against the obstructions or could have empowered the Court to give directions to the decree-holder to move such an application if it feels that the obstructionist without being heard could not be proceeded against. But no such provision has been enacted obviously for the reason that the decree will never be allowed to be executed and hurdles will be created in the execution of the decree by raising false and frivolous claims and rights to continue to remain in possession of the property asserting that the obstructionist is not bound by the decree. But no such provision has been enacted obviously for the reason that the decree will never be allowed to be executed and hurdles will be created in the execution of the decree by raising false and frivolous claims and rights to continue to remain in possession of the property asserting that the obstructionist is not bound by the decree. From the consideration of the case law, 'referred to above, the legal position that emerges is that the provision of Or.21, Rule 97, C.P.C. is only a permissive provision and not a mandatory one and the executing court cannot compel or direct the decree-holder to move an application under O.21, Rule 97 and a stranger to a decree for dispossession has no locus standi to move the executing court, either informing it that he is in possession of the property in his own right and as such not bound by the decree or to claim investigation from the Court into the question of the right to continue to remain in possession of the property. Even when obstruction is reported by the officer executing the warrant of possession, still it is upto the decree-holder to move an application under Or.21, Rule 97, C.P.C., or not." It has further been observed in para 8 as follows: "Mr. J.R. Tatia, learned counsel for Smt. Shridevi further contended that as Smt. Shri Devi is in possession of the property under an agreement to sell and is not bound to relinquish the occupation of the property, as she is not bound by the decree, the decree-holder is only entitled to a constructive possession under Or.21, Rule 36, C.P.C. This contention can again be met by the same argument, which I have considered above that Shri Devi has no locus standi to raise objection." The case of the objector that the judgment-debtor has sold the suit property to Ajgar Khan and Aslam Khan and, thereafter, they have sold the same to him is of no consequence so far the execution of the decree is concerned. Even accepting this case of the objector, the warrant for the delivery of possession can well be executed against him as he is successor-in-title of the judgment-debtor and thus bound with the decree under execution. 6. Even accepting this case of the objector, the warrant for the delivery of possession can well be executed against him as he is successor-in-title of the judgment-debtor and thus bound with the decree under execution. 6. In view of these facts and circumstances, it can well be said that the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Jodhpur has acted with material irregularity and illegality in the exercise of his jurisdiction in staying the execution proceedings. 7. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed with costs. The order of the learned Additional Civil Judge No.1. Jodhpur dated 1 19-12-1990 is set-aside. The executing Court will : see that the actual and physical possession of the ' suit property is delivered to the decree-holder Govind Das within three months from today.Petition allowed. *******