Honble MADAN, J. – This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 23.7.96 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Alwar in Objection Petition No. 41/75/96 whereby the learned trial court dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioner under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC. Since the facts giving rise to the present petition have already been stated in my earlier order passed in SB Civil Revision Petition No. 671/96 decided on 24.5.96, the same are not being repeated again for the sake of bravity. Vide the said order, this Court had recorded a categorical finding in favour of the decree-holder by observing that:– "Prima facie, I am of the opinion that a decree holder, who has ob- tained a lawful decree on the basis of legal rights which have been proved in the said decree, should not be injuncted by way of an injunction suit since that would frustrate a decree which has been lawfully passed. I am further of the opinion that if the petitioner was aggrieved he could have preferred an appeal against the said decree under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but that right too was not available to the petitioner since the right to file an appeal admittedly vested with non-petitioner No. 2, which did not prefer any appeal against the said decree and thus, the decree became obiter and binding on the parties. I am further of the opinion that the peti- tioner who is a stranger to the decree lawfully passed has no right to create any obstruction since he is not having any legal right to oppose the execution of decree lawfully passed. It is the settled law that a person who is a stranger to the decree has no right whatsoever to resist the execution of the decree lawfully passed since he has no right, title or interest to the property in dispute and since the petitioner has admittedly no right, title or interest in the property in question, he has no legal right to resist or oppose the execution of the decree lawfully passed." (2). While passing the aforesaid order in the case of Shyam Lal vs. Ramesh Chandra, at that stage, this Court had taken all the relevant aspects into consideration including the contentions which are not being raised in this revision petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner and had categorically held that this has been a case of protracted trial between the parties for the past several years and the landlord had adversely sufferred since the decree which has been lawfully pa- ssed could not be executed till date. (3). It is unfortunate that instead of complying with the said order, the petitioner again raised objections under Section 47 CPC before the trial court and as a consequence of the same caused willful obstruction not only to the execution of the decree which has been lawfully passed by the trial court but which had also been confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid revision petition, as referred to above. If the parties are given undue latitude then no decree would be lawfully executed. The proper course for the petitioner was to have first obeyed and respected the orders passed by the trial court as well as by this Court by handing over the possession of the property in question to the decree-holder and thereafter could have raised any objection by way of restitution as may be available to him under law in accordance with Section 144 CPC. The contention which are now being raised in this petition have already been dealt with and elaborately considered by this Court in its earlier order, as referred to above, and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any new contentions except the question relating to Order 21 rule 97 CPC in respect of which no ground has been taken either in this revision petition nor in the earlier petition. I am of the view that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC envisages an independent provision which is neither connected nor co- related to the objections which could be lawfully raised and decided by the parties under Section 47 CPC. I am of the view that Order 21 Rule 97 CPC envisages an independent provision which is neither connected nor co- related to the objections which could be lawfully raised and decided by the parties under Section 47 CPC. I am further of the opinion that the contentions which have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, which comes into play on resistance or obstruction being caused by a stranger to the decree who is in possession of the immovable property is not permitted to raise such objection or cause obstruction to the decree lawfully passed since the proce- dure of restitution is available to him under Section 144 CPC. Even in respect of Section 144 CPC when an application for restitution is moved by a party, it is not obligatory upon the Court to direct restitution in each and every case. Since the petitioner had admittedly not preferred any appeal against the decree which has been lawfully passed and having foregone that right even remedy of restitution is now not available to him under the law. (4). Consequently I find no force in this petition. The revision petition is accordingly rejected being devoid of merit. The petitioner is directed to hand-over the peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises in question to respondent No. 1 decree-holder immediately. In the event of failure of the petitioner to do so, the respondent No. 1 decree-holder shall be at liberty to get the police assistance from the trial court for getting the decree executed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for its immediate compliance.