JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.1.1992 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1 Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Execution No. 30 of 1991, whereby the application of the decree holder non-petitioner No. 1 Sudhir Jaju seeking police help for execution of the warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 Civil Procedure Code for taking possession of the property in dispute from the petitioner/objector, Smt. Sarita Gupta has been granted. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the Income Tax Department sold a plot bearing No. B. 15 situated at Shiv Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur to the Vikas Bhawan Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited (hereinafter referred to as Vikas Samiti). The Vikas Samiti allotted this disputed Plot No. B.15 situated at Shiv Marg, Banai Park, Jaipur to Smt. Gopi Thawani on 21.2.1981 though an allotment letter and the vacant possession was handed over to Smt. Gopi Thawani and Smt. Gopi Thawani constructed a room on the said plot. In the month of September, 1986 Smt. Gopi Thawani executed two registered sale deeds on 1.9.1986 and 4.9.1986 respectively in favour of Sh. Shubh Karan Agrawal and Manu Agrawal, who constructed a boundary wall on the land in question and also took electric and water connections from the respective departments. Therafter Mr. Subh Karan Agrawal and Smt. Manju Agrawal executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner Smt. Sarita Gupta on 30.4.1988 for Rs. 1,31,000/-. After paying whole consideration the petitioner constructed two storeyed building on the aforesaid land with basement in the year 1988 and a telephone was also got installed by the husband of the petitioner. The ration card of the family members was also in favour of the petitioner which shows that the petitioner along with her family has been residing in the said property. 3. On 11.12.1981 Prabhu Dayal Nazir came at the site for taking possession of the disputed land. The petitioner thereupon resisted the execution of warrant as she was a bona fide Transfer of Property Act, Section purchaser of the property in dispute for value without notice and had invested a lot of money over. 4. The decree-holder non-petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court on 13.11.1991 under Order 21 Rule 35, CPC, for seeking police held for taking possession of the property from the petitioner. 4. The decree-holder non-petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court on 13.11.1991 under Order 21 Rule 35, CPC, for seeking police held for taking possession of the property from the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid application disclosing therein the aforementioned facts. 5. The Trial Court granted the application submitted under Order 21 Rule 35, Civil Procedure Code by the decree-holder non-petitioner No. 1 vide impugned order dated 20.1.1992, which has been assailed in this revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. B.L. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.D. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the non- petitioner No. 1 and carefully persued the impugned order. It has been contended that the Trial Court without properly appreciating the legal position allowed the application of the decree-holder non-petitioner No. 1 and as such the Trial Court has committed illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it while appreciating the provisions contained in Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 7. Reliance has been placed on Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Anr. (1995) 1 SCC 6 , in which the Apex Court has observed as under:- "Order 21 Rule 35(3) postulates that the person in possession of the immovable property to be delivered under the decree must be per force bound by the decree. The person resisting delivery of possession must be bound by the decree for possession. In other words the resistor must claim derivate title from the judgment-debtor. The Court gets power under Order 21 Rule 97 to remove such obstruction or resistance and direct its officer to put the decree-holder in possession of the immovable property after conducting enquiry under Rule 97. Rule 97 envisages that "any person" even including the judgment-debtor irrespective of whether he claims derivative title from the judgment-debtor or set up his own right, title or interest de hors the judgment-debtor and he resists execution of a decree, then a Court in addition to the power under Rule 35(3) has been empowered to conduct an immovable property was legal or not. The decreeholder gets a right under Rule 97 to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an enquiry thereon could be done. Each occasion of obstruction or resistance furnishes a cause of action to the decree-holder to make an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance by such person." 8. The decreeholder gets a right under Rule 97 to make an application against third parties to have his obstruction removed and an enquiry thereon could be done. Each occasion of obstruction or resistance furnishes a cause of action to the decree-holder to make an application for removal of the obstruction or resistance by such person." 8. This was a case from Rajasthan in which a decree was obtained in Second Appeal No. 175/71 from the Rajasthan High Court on 21.3.1979 of ejectment and mesne profits till date of possession and also arrears of rent. That decree had become final. Thereafter, the appellant filed an execution application under Order 21 Rule 35(3) of the Civil Procedure Code on 24.5.1979. Thereafter, when one Satyanarain, obstructed delivery of possession, on the next day, i.e. on 25.5.79 he made an application under Order 21 Rule 35(3) for police assistance to remove the obstruction caused by Satyanarain. The Court directed the appellant to make an application under Order 21 Rule 97 pursuant to which the appellant made second application on 18.7.89 under Order 21 Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code for removal of obstruction caused by Satyanarain. The District Munsif, Executing Court dismissed that application as being barred by limitation and also dismissed another application being barred by res judicata. On an appeal filed by the appellant the Civil Judge, Bikaner by his order dated 19.5.1983 directed removal of obstruction holding that the third application was not precluded to be filed by the appellant. The High Court in Civil Revision No. 352 of 1983 filed by Satyanarain in the impugned order dated 3.2.1987 set aside the order of the appellate Court and confirmed that of the executing Court. On further review, the High Court confirmed its earlier order. Thus the appeal by special leave was filed against both the orders before the Apex Court. 9. In Babulal v. Rajkumar & Ors., AIR 1966 Supreme Court 2050 , the Apex Court observed as under:- "Where in execution of a decree for special performance of sale deed of property the objector who was not a party to the decree filed an objection on the ground that he could not be dispossessed, the order of the executing Court overruling the objection holding that since he was not dispossessed his application under Order 21 Rule 97 was not maintainable, was illegal. Dispossession of the objector from the property in execution is not a condition for declining to certain the application. An adjudication is required to be conducted under Order 21 Rule 98 before removal of the obstruction caused by the objector and a fording is required to be recorded in that behalf. The order is treated as a decree under Order 21 Rule 103 and it shall be subject to an appeal. Thus, the procedure prescribed is a complete Code in itself. Therefore, the executing Court was required to determine the question, when the objectors had objected to the execution of the decree as against them as they were not parties to the decree for specific performance." 10. It is well settled now that the objector who was not a party to the decree can file an objection on the ground that he cannot be dispossessed. The order of the executing Court overruling the objection holding that since he was not dispossessed, his application under Order 21 Rule 97 was not maintainable is illegal. 11. A perusal of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 101 Civil Procedure Code reveals that all questions (including the question relating to right, tile or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 12. A perusal of the impugned order dated 20.1.1992 goes to show that application submitted under Order 21 Rule 35(3) was decided by the executing Court without following the procedure contained in Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code and Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. No proper enquiry was made in connection with the rights of the petitioner objector who was not the party of the decree as the application submitted under the provisions of Order 21. Rule 97 by the petitioner has not been adjudicated and only a reference of the said application has been given in the impugned order. 13. No proper enquiry was made in connection with the rights of the petitioner objector who was not the party of the decree as the application submitted under the provisions of Order 21. Rule 97 by the petitioner has not been adjudicated and only a reference of the said application has been given in the impugned order. 13. In my considered view the Court below has committed illegality in passing the impugned order and in allowing the application submitted by the non- petitioner No. 1 decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. 14. Consequently I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated 20.1.1992. I direct the Trial Court to decide afresh the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code as well as the application submitted by the decree-holder non-petitioner under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35 Civil Procedure Code simultaneously. I also direct that the parties shall maintain status quo till the final adjudication of the applications referred to as above. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******