JUDGMENT This revision is directed against an order passed in Misc. Case No. 1138/86 on an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C by the petitioners. The Misc. Case No.1138/86 arose out of an application filed by the transferee/decree bolder under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. read with Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. It is, inter alia, alleged that at the time of execution of the decree of the Ejectment Execution Case No 168/86 the petitioners along with the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 refused to vacate and opposed in giving deli very of the suit premises and, therefore, the Bailiff apprehending serious breach of peace returned the writ of possession unexecuted. Thereafter the opposite parties/decree holders filed an application for granting police help while executing the writ by the Bailiff. These petitioners filed a separate written objection against the said application for police help. They, inter alia, alleged that they being in rightful possession of the suit premises, they shall not be bound by the decree. The petitioners bad also earlier filed an application under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. which was registered as a separate Misc. Case but it was subsequently treated as an objection to the application filed for police help. 2. The petitioner No.2 has stated, inter alia, that after the death of Hiralal Shaw, who was his father, he became the tenant in respect of the entire suit premises. When Hiralal Shaw died the petitioner was a minor who did not authorise any one to deal with the suit property. The petitioner No.1 has claimed that his predecessor-in-interest took one room on tenancy from Hiralal Shaw ever since 1937. The tenancy continued even after the death of Hiralal Shaw in the year 1964 till date. The predecessors-in interest of the transferee/decree holders obtained a collusive decree against the Pannalal Shaw who was merely a collecting agent. Therefore, in the above situation they shall not be bound by such decree allegedly obtained against Pannalal Shaw. The tenancy continued even after the death of Hiralal Shaw in the year 1964 till date. The predecessors-in interest of the transferee/decree holders obtained a collusive decree against the Pannalal Shaw who was merely a collecting agent. Therefore, in the above situation they shall not be bound by such decree allegedly obtained against Pannalal Shaw. During the pendency of the application the petitioner No.2 filed a petition under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of his application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. In the said application it has been, inter alia, claimed that the ejectment decree between Smt. Gita Ghosh and Pannalal Shaw, all proceedings relating thereto are collusive and not binding upon the petitioners as Pannalal was never a tenant in the suit premises, who was merely a collecting agent on behalf of the owner Smt. Gita Ghosh. The said application for amendment was resisted by the transferee/decree holders. The learned Trial Court accepting the contention of the transferee/decree holders was, however, inclined to reject the said amendment petition. 3. Mr. Das, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that this application for amendment is only by way of amplification of the facts already stated in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C It has been stated that since in the petition under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. it has been claimed by these petitioners that the previous decree against the original dr. Pannalal Shaw is not valid and binding upon them, therefore, they filed this amendment only to amplify as to how the said decree does not bind them. 4. Mr. Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing for the transferee-decree holders has strongly urged that by making a prayer for amendment of the application, the main fabric of the petition under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C would be totally altered. The petitioners shall not be permitted to change the nature of the decree and get a declaration trial it was ab initio void. 5. While examining the contentions raised by both the parties, it is necessary to quote Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. :– “(101) Question to be determined :– All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives. 5. While examining the contentions raised by both the parties, it is necessary to quote Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. :– “(101) Question to be determined :– All questions (including questions relating to right, title 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 question.” 6. After the amendment of the provision the independent right available to a party to file a separated suit has been expressly taken away and such question for determination shall only be considered on an application under Order 21 Rule 1.01, C.P.C. The said question came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court where I was also a party to the judgment reported in (1) 1995(1)CLJ at page 434 in the case of Subhendu Gupta & Anr. v. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisihan Ltd. & Ors. where it has been held as follows :– “It is noticeable further that the alteration of the language made in the said Rules of Order 21 clearly brings out the change in the legislative intent. In terms of Rule 35 of Order 21, it has to be necessarily implied that the right, title and interest of an obstructionist, who is not bound by the decree, would have to be determined by the Court and possession can be directed to be delivered, even by removing a non-impleaded person in a suit. wherein the decree was passed, If he is bound by the decree and refuses to vacate the property. Again, the language in Rule 58 of Order 21, which has substituted ‘'investigation of claims and objections’ by ‘adjudication of claims and objections’, reflects that the legislative intent is to do away with the summary nature of investigation as was necessary in terms of the un-amended Rule end brings about finality by imposing a process of adjudication, which necessarily involves production of evidence, oral and documentary, and consideration thereof by the Court. Similar linguistic alteration has been made by substitution of sub-rule 2 of Order 21, Rules 97, 99 by bringing in the word ‘adjudication’ in place of ‘investigation’. In terms of Rule 101, the scope of adjudication extends to all questions (including questions relating to right, title 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 adjudication and expressly takes away the right of filing separate suit for determination of such questions. There cannot be any controversy that a person, who obstructs, has a right of hearing and as such falls within the category of parties to the proceeding. Vide Himangsu Paria v Gouri Guha and Anr. Judgment of Division Bench dated 8.5.9.0 consisting of S. Ahmed and Haridas Das, JJ 88 CLJ p. 105, Debendra Nath Sarkar v. Parulbala Ghosh; (2) 56 CWN p. 832, Bhupesh Chandra Dutta v. Dr. M.N. Bose; (3) 60 CWN p. 147, Jagat Lakshmi Dasi v. Golam Hossain and Anr. By Rule 103, order passed on an application, which has been adjudicated has been conferred the status of a decree and is appealable as such which is a clear pointer to the requirement of consideration of evidence as the remedy by way of appeal, instead of revision, as under the earlier unamended law, would be a mere illusion in the absence of evidence or power of the Court to consider evidence. In this connection, it is pertinent to mode that by Rule 104 such an appealable order has been made subject only to a pending suit; in other words, once recourse has been taken or has been allowed to be taken to the process of adjudication as provided in the amended provisions of Order 21, a regular suit cannot be filed for a remedy.” 7. In this connection the Division Bench relying upon a Supreme Court judgment held that the application filed by a third party challenging the executability of the decree would be considered under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. but not by a separate suit. On a careful perusal of the prayer made in the application under Rule 101 it has been stated by the petitioners that they have title in respect of the suit premises as a tenant which required to be investigated in terms of Order 21 Rule 101. On a careful perusal of the prayer made in the application under Rule 101 it has been stated by the petitioners that they have title in respect of the suit premises as a tenant which required to be investigated in terms of Order 21 Rule 101. While investigating such question, it would be incidentally necessary to go into the validity of the decree obtained by the transferee/decree holders’ predecessor in interest. The amendment petition filed by the petitioners if considered seriously, it does not amount to changing the nature and character of the claim which they have made in their application. They did not seek any specific prayer to annul the previous decree and it appears to me also not necessary since while examining the question of title all such questions shall be gone into Though the application filed by the petitioners was separately registered as Misc. Case No. 572 of 1993 but the executing Court while dealing with the amendment application passed an order that he need not address separately on the application filed under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. by the petitioners. But I am not in a position to agree with his observations since under the amended provisions the right, title and interest has to be gone into when a separate application is presented under Rule 101 of Order 21 C.P.C. He may deal both the applications together and one set of evidence may be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion whether the petitioners have got independent title to resist the possession claimed by the opposite party/transferee/decree holders. If it is answered in negative, then possible they cannot resist the delivery of possession claimed by the transferee/decree holders. 8 Mr. Das, the learned Advocate has submitted that his clients would file rejoinder to the application for police help claimed by the opposite party/decree holders under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. In that event let the petitioners file rejoinder, within a week here from but no further chance shall be given to them; in case they default in filing the rejoinder before the executing Court. Since the amendment claimed by the petitioners to the application under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. has been allowed, the opposite party/transferee/decree holders equally shall be given opportunity to file written objection to the petition. Let the transferee/decree holders also file rejoinder if they so like within a week herefrom. 9. Mr. Since the amendment claimed by the petitioners to the application under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. has been allowed, the opposite party/transferee/decree holders equally shall be given opportunity to file written objection to the petition. Let the transferee/decree holders also file rejoinder if they so like within a week herefrom. 9. Mr. Dutta has claimed, that this is a decree which was originally obtained in the year 1982 and the decree holder has not been able to reap the fruits of the decree, it is high time that the executing Court should be apprised to hasten-up the hearing of the proceeding and conclude the same. Accordingly the executing Court is directed to dispose of both the applications namely, filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and under Order 21 Rule 101 C.P.C. within two months from the date of communication of this order. 10. Accordingly the revisional application is allowed in the light of the above observation. 11. Office is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the trial Court by a Special Messenger, the cost of which shall be paid by the opposite party within three days. Xerox certified copy if applied for, shall be delivered as expeditiously as possible but not later than three weeks.