C. N. ASWATHANARAYANA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for consideration in this matter is the maintainability of the revision petition. The petitioner an applicant in i. a. iii before the executing court in execution No. 512 of 1990 on the file of the court of the small causes at mysore has filed this revision petition against an Order dated 23-10-1997, passed by the executing court, dismissing his petition, filed under Section 151, C. P. C. for impleading him as a party to the proceeding. ( 2 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing on the question of admission, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the revision petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner had to file an appeal if he is aggrieved by the impugned order. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case have been stated by the petitioner in the revision petition in paras 1 to 6. They can be quoted as follows: ( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that he filed an application i. a. iii before the executing court under Section 151, C. P. C. , praying for impleading the applicant as a party to the proceeding and since that application is rejected, he got filed a revision petition against the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that i. a. iii is not an application under Order 21, rule 97 by an obstructor and therefore the Order passed on it cannot be construed as a decree and no appeal lies against such an order. Per contra the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argued that though the application i. a. iii is filed as an application under Section 151, C. P. C. , in fact it is an application under Order 21, rule 97 of C. P. C. only and the impugned Order makes it quite evident. He submitted therefore the revision petition is not maintainable and only an appeal is maintainable. The learned counsel for the parties relied upon certain decisions in support of their respective contentions. On a perusal of the said decisions and facts of the case, I find, it is not possible to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted therefore the revision petition is not maintainable and only an appeal is maintainable. The learned counsel for the parties relied upon certain decisions in support of their respective contentions. On a perusal of the said decisions and facts of the case, I find, it is not possible to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a case in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, it has been held therein as follows:while there can be no dispute about the principle laid down therein, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the 2nd 'respondent, it does not touch upon the point involved in the matter, as to whether a revision or an appeal is maintainable against such an order. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent relied upon two decisions. In Arjun v Zempanna Gangappa Sambanni, it has been held as follows: ( 5 ) IN M/s. Paramound Industries and Metal Finishers v Smt. C. M. Malliga, it has been held as follows:now bearing in mind, the principles enunciated in these decisions if we examine the facts of the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, it becomes obvious that the application i. a. iii though filed under Section 151, C. P. C. , it has been treated as an application under Order 21, rule 97, C. P. C. , and therefore the impugned Order comes within the ambit of Order 21, rule 97, C. P. C. the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a copy of the application la. Iii filed in the executing court. The prayer in the said application is as follows:in the affidavit filed along with the application, the applicant has set out the merits of his claim over the decree schedule property. The application was objected to by the decree-holder. In the impugned Order in para 2, the executing court has observed "on 21-6-1991, (i. a. iii is filed on 12-12-1990) while passing Order on i. a. iii, this court has permitted the applicant/obstructor by giving an opportunity to put forth his grievances by adducing cogent evidence etc. The application was objected to by the decree-holder. In the impugned Order in para 2, the executing court has observed "on 21-6-1991, (i. a. iii is filed on 12-12-1990) while passing Order on i. a. iii, this court has permitted the applicant/obstructor by giving an opportunity to put forth his grievances by adducing cogent evidence etc. " this observation goes to show that the executing court rightly considered the application i. a. iii as an application of an obstructor and deciding to hold an enquiry gave an opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence on the same. The impugned Order further goes to show that accordingly the parties examined themselves and adduced their evidence on the merits of the claim of the applicant in i. a. iii. Para 4 of the impugned Order goes to show that the executing court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties formulated a point for decisions as follows:the execution court has answered this point in the negative, after going through the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. There is a detailed discussion of the evidence in the impugned order. The operative portion of the Order reads as follows:it is therefore very obvious from the prayer made in the application i. a. iii as well as the impugned Order that what the claimant in i. a. iii sought for was an opportunity to establish his case and the executing court accordingly, accepting his contention, gave an opportunity to him as well as to the decree-holder, to adduce their evidence on the merits of the claim in i. a. iii and decided the matter. Therefore by no stretch of imagination, could it be said that i. a. iii is only an application under Section 151, C. P. C. , praying for impleading the applicant as a party to the execution proceeding. As I have already pointed out above the very prayer in i. a. iii and the affidavit filed along with it goes to show that the prayer of the applicant was not only to implead him as a party to the execution proceeding but also to investigate his claim as an obstructor over the decree schedule property and decide the matter. That is exactly what the executing court has done. That is exactly what the executing court has done. Now the observations made by this court at page 260 in paramound industries case, supra, may be seen. It has been held therein as follows:this is exactly what the applicant in i. a. iii has done. He is not a party to the decree. He wanted to obstruct to the delivery warrant issued in the case by filing the application i. a. iii and accordingly it has been entertained and an enquiry is held under Order 21, rule 97, C. P. C. therefore, I am unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that i. a. iii being only an application for impleading a party under Section 151, C. P. C. , a revision petition is maintainable against an Order passed on the same. Hence, I find the revision petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .