JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :- Both these two revisional applications have been heard analogously and would be governed by the following order. 2. Both the applications arise out of the order dated 24.756 passed by the learned Judge-in-Charge, Bench No.5, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 556 of 1996, filed by M/s. Capstan Shipping Estate (P) Ltd , the O.P. No.2 in C.O. No. 1649 of 1996 and petitioner in C. O. No 1650 of 1996 under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC praying for adjudication of its right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property and for dismissing the ejectment execution case No 28 of 1996 pending in the said Court By the Impugned order the learned Judge has held that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the application under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC does not lie but at the same time he has held that an enquiry into the matter should be made under Section 151 CPC. It is his categorical finding that although the Misc. Case dose not specifically lie under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC but the said Misc. Case is maintainable in law, under Section 151 of the CPC. The reasonings given by the learned Trial Judge may be quoted below : "It is a fact that Order 21 Rule 101 CPC is not applicable 10 this case. It is also a fact that the applicant is a third party-resistor. According to Order 21 Rule 101 CPC third party-resistor cannot bring a separate suit. It is also a fact that Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC is not applicable in case of third party-resistor. Then the question arises as to what is the remedy of the third party-resistor. The answer is that the third party-resistor has no other alternative but to file a Misc. Case under Section 151 CPC. When the applicant has challenged the ex parte decree as a collusive one and submits that fraud bas been practised upon the Court to obtain ex parte decree, in that cage without hearing the Misc. Case No..556/96 or without recording the evidence on the points of collusion and fraud, the Misc. Case cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is not maintainable at all So I hold that the Misc. Case No..556/96 or without recording the evidence on the points of collusion and fraud, the Misc. Case cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is not maintainable at all So I hold that the Misc. Case under Section 151 CPC is maintainable in law." 3. The learned Counsel appearing for Sliver line Forum Private Limited, the appellant-petitioner in C. O. No. 1649 of 1996 has contended that the above order passed by the learned Trial Judge is absolutely illegal and as such it should be set aside under Section 115 CPC. According to Mr. Majumdar, the learned Counsel appearing for the above petitioner. In view of the finding of the learned Trial Judge that such a Misc. Case is not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC he should have dismissed the same outright as there was no scope to hear out the said Misc. Case independently under Section 115 CPC. Mr. Majumdar bas made strenuous efforts to argue on the merits of the opposite party No. 28 application under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC to bring home the point that the said O. P. No.2 has no case at all to be decided under Order 21 Rule 101 or Independently under Section 151 CPC. On the other hand, Mr. Panja and Mr. Roy chowdhury, the learned Counsels appearing for the O.P. No.2 Messers. Capstan Shipping etc. who is also the petitioner In the second revisional application have contended that the said company has an independent right to be adjudicated Upon under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC or at least under Section 151 CPC But I must note that the merits of the case pending before the learned Trial judge have not yet been considered by the Trial Judge because the impugned order was passed by the Trial Judge on the point of maintainability of the above MISC. Case taken on behalf of the present petitioner before him. There is no finding of the Trial Judge in the impugned order about the merits or otherwise of the Misc. Case. In that view of the matter this Court will not make any observation on the merits of the case. Case taken on behalf of the present petitioner before him. There is no finding of the Trial Judge in the impugned order about the merits or otherwise of the Misc. Case. In that view of the matter this Court will not make any observation on the merits of the case. It is only to be seen whether by passing the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity and that if such order is allowed to stand it would occasion a failure of Justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it has been made. The revisioneal Court is also to see in the alternative if the order had been made in favour of the puny applying for revision, it would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. There is, however, no case that the Trial Judge has failed to exercise his jurisdiction so vested on the part of any of the petitioners in the above two revisional applications. This is to be seen whether the Trial Judge by directing the Misc. Case to be heard under Section 151 has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or while passing the above order has acted illegally or with material irregularity and above all whether the impugned order is allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the petitioners. Although the question of considering the above Misc. Case on merits by this High Court does not arise at all it would be of great advantage to refer to the admitted or undisputed set of facts to appreciate the contention of the parties to the present proceedings. 4. The disputed property is a flat being No.3 of Harrington Mansion at 8, Ho-Chi-Minh Sarani, Calcutta 71. Admittedly the Silver line Forum Private Limited is the present owner of the disputed premises of which one Arun Kumar Jalan & Others were the previous owners. The erstwhile owners i.e. Arun Kumar Jalan & Others created tenancy in respect of the disputed premises in favour of M/s.Rajiv Trust (O. P. No.1 in C.O No. 1649 of 1996 and O.P. No. 2 in CO. The erstwhile owners i.e. Arun Kumar Jalan & Others created tenancy in respect of the disputed premises in favour of M/s.Rajiv Trust (O. P. No.1 in C.O No. 1649 of 1996 and O.P. No. 2 in CO. No. 1650 of 1996) sometime in 1975 with an authority to sublet or sub-lease the same for a period not exceeding 10 years. On 1.6.80 the Rajiv Trust sublet the property to Accounting and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. On 20.10.81 the said Accounting & Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. sublet the suit property to the O.P. No.2, M/s. Capstan Shipping etc. Sometime in 1990 one Srikrishna Arjun Trading & Investment . Co. (P) Ltd became the owner of the suit property as per order of this High Court which was communicated by the Jalans to Rajiv Trust. On 30.3.90 Rajiv Trust terminated the tenancy of Accounting & Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. and accepted the sub-tenancy of one AAR Commercial Co Ltd On 14.1.92 the said Rajiv Trust cancelled the tenancy of AAR Commercial Co Ltd. and accepted Vidit Marketing & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. The O.P. No.2, from May 1992, started paying rent to Vidit Marketing & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. On 21.4.95 the present petitioner Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd purchased the suit property from Srikrishna Arjun Trading & Investment Co. (P) Ltd. 5. On 28.6.95 the Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd., the present petitioner in the first revisional application filed a suit for declaration and injunction being T.S No. 220 of 1995 against Rajiv Trust for a decree of permanent injunction restraining them from carrying on illegal construction on the suit property. The O.P. No. 2 i.e. M/s. Capstan Shipping filed an application in the said suit for being added as party on 13.7.95. On 31.8.95 the Silverline Forum filed a second suit for ejectment against the said Rajiv Trust being T.S. No. 326 of 1995. On 4.9.95 the O.P. No. 2 i.e. M/s. Capstan Shipping file T.S. No. 2987 of 1995 against the said Rajiv Trust and the present petitioner i.e. Silverline Forum. It may be mentioned that all these suits were filed in the City Civil Court, Calcutta. On 12.12.95 ex parte decree for eviction was passed in T.S. No. 326 of 1995 against Rajiv Trust in which the O.P. No.2 i.e. M/s. Capstan Shipping was admittedly not a party. It may be mentioned that all these suits were filed in the City Civil Court, Calcutta. On 12.12.95 ex parte decree for eviction was passed in T.S. No. 326 of 1995 against Rajiv Trust in which the O.P. No.2 i.e. M/s. Capstan Shipping was admittedly not a party. In the meantime, on 7.9.95 Capstan Shipping in their suit being T.S. No. 2987 of 1995 prayed for an ad interim order or injunction which was refused by the Trial Court. Against the said order Capstan Shipping preferred an appeal before this High Court and his High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and directed by its order dated 7.3.96 passed in F.M.A.T. No. 3488 of 1995, the Trial Court to dispose of the injunction application in T.S. No. 2987 of 1995 within 3 weeks. At the time of hearing of the present matters the undisputed position is that the said injunction application was dismissed for default and application for its restoration has been filed which is still pending. 6. On 13.3.96 the Silverline Forum put the ex parte decree obtained by them in T.S. No. 326 of 1995 as per order dated 12.12.95 into execution in Execution Case No. 28 of 1996. In the said execution case 20.3.96 was fixed for making over possession of the suit premiH8 by the Court Bailiff but on the said date possession could not be delivered because of the admitted resistance and obstruction given by the representative of the Opposite Party No.2, Capstan Shipping the Court B1mff returned the writ on 20.3.96 In the Executing Court below. On 22.3.96 the petitioner decree-holder Sliverline Forum made an application under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules & Orders read with Section 151 of the CPC in the Executing Court for executing the decree through police help. On 2.4.96 the learned Judge, 2nd hence of the City Civil Court allowed the prayer for police help without bearing the resistor or obstructionist Capstan Shipping and fixed 4.4.96 for executing the decree for police help. On the same date i.e. 4.4.96 while the decree was being executed through police help the Court below passed an order stopping the execution proceeding in view of the Misc. Case being No. 556 of 1996 being filed by the Capstan Shipping under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC. On the same date i.e. 4.4.96 while the decree was being executed through police help the Court below passed an order stopping the execution proceeding in view of the Misc. Case being No. 556 of 1996 being filed by the Capstan Shipping under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC. Against the said order of stay passed by the Court below on 4.4.96 the Silverline Forum the present petitioner preferred an appeal before this High Court which was admitted as F.M.A.T. No. 1075 of 1996. By the order dated 18 4.96 passed by the Division Bench admitting the aforesaid Misc. Appeal the Court below was directed to hear out all objections relating to execution of decree by 6.5.96. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid Misc. Case on 17.5.96 the learned Counsel appearing for the present petitioner Silverline Forum raised the point of maintainability of the aforesaid Misc. Case and submitted that the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the same. The Court below by its order dated 17.5.96 fixed 22.5.96 for hearing the maintainability point relating to the aforesaid Misc. Case. Ultimately on 24.7.96 the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order which-has already been referred to. 7. Now the question is whether there is any reason to interfere with the Impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge under Section 151 CPC. Admittedly the O.P. No.2 is in possession of the suit premises and has been in possession of the same since 20.10.81 i.e. from long before the present petitioner brought T.S. No. 2230 of 1995 on 28.6.95 and T.S. No. 326 of 1995 on 12.12.95 against the Rajiv Trust. The T.S. No 326 of 1995 was the suit for eviction against the Rajiv Trust in which an ex parte decree was obtained by the present' petitioner. The decree obtained in the said suit has been put into execution 'by the petitioner which has been resisted by the present O.P. No.2 M/s. Capstan Shipping on its alleged independent right. The T.S. No 326 of 1995 was the suit for eviction against the Rajiv Trust in which an ex parte decree was obtained by the present' petitioner. The decree obtained in the said suit has been put into execution 'by the petitioner which has been resisted by the present O.P. No.2 M/s. Capstan Shipping on its alleged independent right. In this connection, it would be helpful to refer to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 35(1) of the CPC which runs as follows ;- "Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom It has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property", 8. The provision is quite clear in stating that possession of the immovable property in, the subject matter of the decree is to be delivered to the decree holder or to his authorised agent, if necessary by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. As has been already noted M/ s. Capitan Shipping was not a party to the petitioners T. S. No. 326 of 1995 where the ex parte decree was passed against Rajiv Trust. The question whether Capstan Shipping Is bound by the decree passed in the above suit or not is to be decided in the light of the objections taken by the said O. P No 2. Along with the aforesaid provisions the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 to Rule 101 should be taken note of. Under Order 21 Rule 97 where the decree holder while executing the decree for possession of the Immovable property Is resisted or obstructed by any persons in obtaining possession of the property he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. .on such application being made the Court has to proceed to adjudicate upon the same in accordance with the provisions as provided in Rule 101. Similarly under Rule 99 where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder in execution proceeding etc. he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. .on such application being made the Court has to proceed to adjudicate upon the same in accordance with the provisions as provided in Rule 101. Similarly under Rule 99 where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder in execution proceeding etc. he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. On such application being made the Court has to proceed to adjudicate upon the same in accordance with the provision of Rule 101. If the case of the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97 succeeds the Court is to pass the orders under Rule 98 and If the application of the person dispossessed of the immovable property under Rule 99 succeeds the Court is to pass appropriate orders under Rule 100 Be it an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or an application under Order 21 Rule 99 the questions raised in the same are to be determined by the Court on adjudication under Order 21 Rule 101. So it is quite clear that Rule 101 is the controlling rule of Rules 97-98 and Rules 99-100 as the case may be. Rule 99 is attracted when a person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of Immovable property by the decree-holder in the execution proceeding. In the instant case the application under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the M/s Capstan Shipping O. P. No.2 who is admittedly not the judgment debtor in relation to the ex parte decree obtained by the Silverline Forum in their suit being T. S. No. 326 of 199 on 12.12.95. It has been contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that an application under Order 21 Rule 101 could not lie at the Instance of the M/s. Capstan Shipping as admittedly they were not dispossessed of the decretal property and that as such the lower Courts jurisdiction under Rule 101 could not be invoked. The learned Trial Judge in his impugned order has held that Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 CPC is not applicable in case of a third party-resistor. The learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have submitted that this observation of the learned Court below is palpably wrong in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. The learned Counsels appearing for both the parties have submitted that this observation of the learned Court below is palpably wrong in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 and Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. The above provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 and Rule 99 have already been discussed by me. Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99 nowhere provides that it has no application to a third party-resistor. On the other hand Rule 97 is quite clear in its application to a case of red stance or obstruction being given by any person to the execution of a decree for possession of immovable property. Rule 99 applies to a case where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of the immovable property in execution of the decree by the decree-holder. So this part of the finding of the learned Trial Judge must be held to be wrong, but, such observation, as bas been rightly submitted by Mr. Roy chowdhury does not vitiate the entire order in view of the admitted position that in connection with the prayer for police help under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders Volume I made by the present petitioner, the O. P. No.2 was not heard although specific allegation was there against the O.P. No. 2 or its representative by name that they resisted the execution of the ex-parte decree passed in favour of the petitioner against the sole judgment debtor Rajiv Trust. Mr. Roychowdhury has submitted that the law is well settled on this point that when a third party is in possession of the decretal immovable property and resists the execution, the application made by the decree-holder under Order 21 Rule 35 of the Civil Procedure Code and for police help should be treated as application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC and adjudication is required to be conducted under Rule 98. In such a case earlier dispossession of the applicant resistor from the property for giving a hearing to the resistor. In support of his contention he has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1) 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases Page 242 and (2) 1995 (3) Supreme Court Cases Page 154. Mr. Roychowdhury has also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (3) 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases Page 6, Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Another. Mr. Roychowdhury has also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court reported in (3) 1995 (1) Supreme Court Cases Page 6, Bhanwar Lal v. Satyanarain and Another. It has been held there as follows : - “Order 21, Rule 35 (3) postulated 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 and he resists execution of a decree, then the Court in addition to the power under Rule 35 (3) has been empowered to conduct an enquiry whether the obstruction by that person in obtaining possession of the immovable property was legal or not. The decree-holder 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.” 9. Mr. Roychowdhury has also referred to a decision of this High Court in (4) AIR 1967 Cal Page 252, Gaya Nath Ghose v. Amulya Chandra Sarkar and Another, where this High Court has decided the question of the right on hearing of a occupant resistor. The relevant part of the judgment may be quoted below :- "If the decree cannot be effectively executed without police help the decree-holder may apply to the Court for the grant of such help. An application for police help is essentially different from an application under Order 21 Rule 97 though the two applications are often joined in one petition..................................... .............. ... An order, for police help vitally effects all persons in actual possession of the property With the powerful backing of such an order all persons in actual possession whether they are bound by the decree or not are likely to be evicted brevimanu from the property summarily. .............. ... An order, for police help vitally effects all persons in actual possession of the property With the powerful backing of such an order all persons in actual possession whether they are bound by the decree or not are likely to be evicted brevimanu from the property summarily. Relief by way of restoration of possession obtained by an application under Order 21, Rule 100 is poor consolation for a person who Is unlawfully dispossessed the Court should, therefore, proceed with great caution In granting police help. The Court should not hesitate to give such aid if execution of its process is unlawfully obstructed and its process cannot be executed without such aid. But where there is a bona fide claim by an occupant that be is not bound by the decree and as such is entitled to resist eviction in execution of the decree the Court may and should decline to give such aid until his claim is negatived in appropriate proceedings...... ....................................... The claimant Is vitally affected by an order for police help and is entitled to be beard on an application praying for such help. The Court has unfettered discretion and ample power to do justice. The Court may examine any person it thinks fit and bear him. If necessary the Court may direct notice to all persons in actual possession by advertisement or otherwise the decree-holder is under a duty to disclose full facts. An order for police help obtained improperly or by suppression of material facts is liable to be set aside". 10. It has been urged before me by Mr. Roychowdhury the learned Counsel for O. P. No.2 that in the instant matters his client raised a bona fide claim regarding its right to occupy the suit premises in respect of which an ex parte decree was obtained by the petitioner by practising fraud. I agree with the contention of Sri Roychowdhury that this aspect of the matter has got to be adjudicated upon in the aforesaid Misc. Case by the Court below although strictly speaking an application under Order 21 Rule 99 did not lie. In the facts and circumstances of the case because admittedly the O. P. No.2 has not been dispossessed although being resisted by the O. P No.2 or his named agent the petitioner did not file any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. In the facts and circumstances of the case because admittedly the O. P. No.2 has not been dispossessed although being resisted by the O. P No.2 or his named agent the petitioner did not file any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. He simply prayed for police help under Rule 208 of the CPC which was allowed ex parte without hearing the O. P. No.2. The application of the petitioner under Rule 208 of the Civil Rules and Orders Volume I read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be found at Page 83 of the first revisional application being Annexure ‘H’. As it appears from the Paragraph 3 of the same admittedly no resistance was given on behalf of the judgment debtor i.e. Rajiv Trust. From Paragraph 3 it further appears that one Basab Bhattacharjee on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 resisted the execution. From the list of dates has submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner it appears that the possession of the suit premises by the O.P. No. 2 since 20.10.81 was within the knowledge of the petitioner. Mr. Roychowdhury has rightly submitted that it would be unreasonable to expect or require the judgment-debtor to approach the Court under Order 21 Rule 99 after allowing itself to be dispossessed by the decree-holder. The O.P. No. 2, being not given an opportunity of hearing in the matter of the petitioner’s application for police help under Rule 208 of the C.R.O., Volume I and he being threatened with dispossession in the execution proceeding, had no other alternative than to approach by filing a petition under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC. It is rightly submitted by Sri Roychowdhury as because the petitioner did not file any application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC on being admittedly resisted by the O.P. No. 2 not being the judgment-debtor or claiming any title under it, his application under Order 21 Rule 101 read with section 151 CPC cannot be thrown out or summarily rejected. As such Mr. Roychowdhury submits that the learned Court below has rightly directed an enquiry of the matter under section 151 CPC in the same Misc. Case being No. 556 of 1996. In view of the aforesaid decisions cited by Mr. As such Mr. Roychowdhury submits that the learned Court below has rightly directed an enquiry of the matter under section 151 CPC in the same Misc. Case being No. 556 of 1996. In view of the aforesaid decisions cited by Mr. Roychowdhury it must be held that the O.P. No. 2 has a right of hearing in the matter of police help prayed under Rule 208 of the C.R.O. Volume I or in the execution proceeding in view of the persistence admittedly given by him or on his behalf on a claim of independent right and also challenging the decree on ground of fraud. In a recent case decided by Division Bench of this High Court reported in (5) 1995 (1) CLJ Page 434, Subhendu Gupta and Anr. v. Calcutta Vyapar Pratisthan Ltd. and Others in has been held as follows :- “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 proceedings, on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives and relevant to the adjudication of the application and expressly takes away the right of filling 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 proceedings.” 11. Now the question is whether the learned Court below committed any act of illegality or material irregularity by directing the Misc. Case to be heard under Section 151 CPC. Rule 776 of C.R.O. Volume I enumerates the cases under the Civil Procedure. Code or under other Acts arc to be treated as miscellaneous judicial cases. The Civil Rules and Orders are the administrative rules framed by this High Court In discharge of Its constitutional obligation of superintendence over its subordinate Courts. Rule 776 may be quoted below which runs as follows :- "Separate statements being provided to show applications for the execution of decrees, these will not be Included under the head "Miscellaneous Judicial" cases, and it is Intended that such other Cases only as require a judicial enquiry or order should be Included." The classification of cases as made in the above Civil Rules and Orders is for statistical purpose. It is clearly provided in the aforesaid Rule that such other cases may be treated as miscellaneous judicial cases as require a judicial enquiry or order the instant Misc. Case being No. 556 of 1996 has been directed by the Court below to be he and as such under Section 151 CPC without however any reference to the above Rule. In view of the provision of Rule 776 C.R.O., Volume -1 I do not find any Illegality in the same An application under Section 151 CPC may be lavelled as a miscellaneous judicial case if it requires a judicial enquiry or order. It is admitted that the petition filed by the O. P. No.2 under Order 21 Rule 101 read with Section 151 CPC required a judicial enquiry or order in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Under Section 151 the inherent powers of the Court are unfettered to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse or the process .of the Court. In the instant case O. P. No. 2 does not strictly come under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. But admittedly O. P. No.2 is in possession, he has resisted the execution of the decree and his possession is under threat. In the list of dates submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner it has been admitted that on 4.4.96 execution of the decree through police help in respect of the disputed premises was almost complete and nearly 80% of all the furniture and fixtures were removed by the Court bailiff, but the execution could not be completed through police help because of the order of stay granted by the learned Court below on the same date in the aforesaid Misc. Case. 12. In this position, I do not find my read on to interfere with the impugned order whereby the learned Judge has rightly granted hearing to the O. P. No.2 under Section 151 CPC in the matter of the execution proceedings arising out of the ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner in respect of the disputed premises. Case. 12. In this position, I do not find my read on to interfere with the impugned order whereby the learned Judge has rightly granted hearing to the O. P. No.2 under Section 151 CPC in the matter of the execution proceedings arising out of the ex parte decree obtained by the petitioner in respect of the disputed premises. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to number of decisions In support of his contention that the Impugned order is bad in law but I do not think it necessary to refer to the same in view of the legal position as noted above except the one reported in (6) Judgments Today 1996 (4) SC 444, Kazl Akeel Ahmed v. Ibrahim and Anr. In that case the Supreme Court rejected the plea of the respondent that be was a tenant on the ground that the claim was wholly fictitious. The relevant part of the judgment may be quoted below for appropriate appreciation of the background :- "It is true that when an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code is made, it contemplates an investigation into the claim made in the application; in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 98 and the rules following thereafter. But in the special facts and circumstance of the present case, we see no reason to hold such an enquiry or investigation as the same would be a futile exercise in view of the fact that Civil Suit instituted by the respondent No.2 Girraj making the same claim as has been made by him. In his application under Order 21 Rule 97 has been dismissed by the Civil Court on November 2, 1995 A perusal of the said judgment goes to show that the respondent No. 2 Girraj was unable to produce any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove that he was holding the shop in question as a tenant in his own rights. These facts clearly go to show that the claim of the respondent No.2 that he is a tenant is wholly fictitious and without any foundation and it was for this reason that the suit had been dismissed with cost to the tune of Rs.2.000. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the application of respondent No.2 resisting the execution of the decree validly passed by a competent Court of Law". 13. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, we find absolutely no merit in the application of respondent No.2 resisting the execution of the decree validly passed by a competent Court of Law". 13. In the instant case the position is quite clear. Admittedly on 4.9.95 the present O. P No.2 filed a Title Suit being T S. No. 2987 of 1985 against the present petitioner and the Rajiv Trust which is still pending. Admittedly there has not been the only adjudication in the above suit relating to the right, title and interest of the O.P. No.2 in respect of the disputed property. So the above reported decision of the Supreme Court does not help the petitioner in C. O. No. 1649 of 1996. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the materials on record and after considering the legal position in this regard. I again reiterate that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order under Section 115 CPC. By passing the Impugned order the learned. Trial Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error and has not acted illegally or with material irregularity so as to occasion a failure of justice or to cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. The question or failure of justice or sufferance of irreparable injury by the petitioner does not arise at all as the learned Trial Judge has directed the matter to be heard on merits under Section 151 CPC. There is no substance in both the revisional applications. Accordingly both are dismissed. No order as to costs. All Interim orders are vacated.