Judgment : This revision is against the orders of the Principal Sub Judge, Tenkasi, made in E.P.No.39 of 1996 in O.S.No.96 of 1966, dated 18. 1998. 2. This revision has arisen in this way: The petitioner herein is the sixth respondent in the E.P.No.39 of 1996. The main suit is one for partition and possession of the properties. Preliminary decree was passed on 3. 1967 and final decree was passed on 23. 1969. The decree-holder instituted E.P. proceedings in E.P.No.81 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, which was later transferred to the Principal Sub Court, Tenkasi and numbered as E.P.No.10 of 1988. The E.P. was filed for delivery of possession of the properties. The present petitioner and the seventh respondents therein objected to the execution and obstructed the delivery of possession. The petitioner in the E.P. proceedings filed E.A.Nos.35 of 1988 and 38 of 1988 as against the petitioner herein, namely, respondent No.5 and respondent No.7 in the E.P. proceedings respectively. The petitioner herein/respondent No.6 and the respondent No.7 in the E.P. proceedings filed an application under O.21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in E.A.Nos.88 of 1989 and 89 of 1989. The Executing Court enquired into the proceedings and dismissed the applications in E.A.No.88 of 1989 and 89 of 1989. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court, the petitioner herein and the seventh respondent in the E.P. proceedings, preferred C.R.P.Nos.3140 of 1989 and 3141 of 1989 before this Court. Both the civil revision petitions were also dismissed. Subsequent to the dismissal of the civil revision petitions, the petitioner herein respondent No.6 in the E.P. proceedings instituted suit in O.S.No.279 of 1989 and the seventh respondent in the E.P. proceedings instituted suit in O.S.No.280 of 1989. The suit preferred by the petitioner herein, viz., O.S.No.279 of 1989 was dismissed. Further the learned District Munsif granted injunction as prayed for. Proceedings are pending in O.S.No.280 of 1988. At this stage, the Executing Court proceeded with the main E.P.No.10 of 1988. Latter pending civil revision petitions on the file of this Court, E.P.No.10 of 1988 was closed. After disposal of the civil revision petitions and dismissal of suit in O.S.No.279 of 1988, the petitioner in E.P. proceedings instituted E.P.No.39 of 1996 seeking delivery of possession. At this stage, the Executing Court proceeded with the main E.P.No.10 of 1988. Latter pending civil revision petitions on the file of this Court, E.P.No.10 of 1988 was closed. After disposal of the civil revision petitions and dismissal of suit in O.S.No.279 of 1988, the petitioner in E.P. proceedings instituted E.P.No.39 of 1996 seeking delivery of possession. The petitioner herein as the sixth respondent objected to the delivery on the ground that the learned District Munsif has granted permanent injunction against the petitioner herein in O.S.No.279 of 1988 and therefore, the execution should not be proceeded with. The Executing Court rejected such contention and ordered delivery of possession by 19. 1998. Aggrieved by that order, the sixth respondent has come forward with the instant revision. 3. Heard both the sides. It is quite evident that the petitioner herein is a subsequent purchaser, who had purchased the properties subsequent to the institution of the main suit during 1966. It is evident that while the plaintiff instituted execution proceedings. the petitioner herein raised objections. Her objections were rejected by the Executing Court and her revision petition was also dismissed by this Court. The learned District Munsif had granted injunction, against the decree-holder in O.S.No.279 of 1988, which would be of no avail to the petitioner herein, for all questions relating to right, title or interest arising between the parties are to be gone into in the proceedings instituted under O.21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by separate proceedings under a suit. This has been reiterated in Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others Smt.Ranu Aich v. Smt.Lakshmi Debnath and others , 1998 Civ.C.R. 416 (Cal.) (D.B.) their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court have pointed out that title to the property has to be gone into in proceedings under O.21, Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the decision given in the proceedings under O.21, Rule 97 operates as res judicata and therefore defeated party cannot institute a suit to again go into the question of title. 4. In Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others , (1998)2 L.W. 418 their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as under: “10…. 4. In Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others Shreenath and another v. Rajesh and others , (1998)2 L.W. 418 their Lordships of the Apex Court have held as under: “10…. Order 21, Rule 99 conceives of resistance of obstruction to the possession of immovable property when made in execution of a decree by” any person“. This may be either by the person bound by the decree, claiming title through judgment-debtor or claiming independent right of his own including tenant not party to the suit or even a stranger. A decree-holder, in such case, may make an application to the Executing Court complaining such resistance, for delivery of possession of the property. Subclause (2) after 1976 substitution empowers the Executing Courts when such claim is made to proceed to adjudicate upon the applicants claim in accordance with provisions contained hereinafter. This refers to Order 21, Rule 101, (as amended by 1976 Act) under which all questions relating to rights, title or interest in the property arising between the parties under Order 21, Rule 97 or Rule 99 shall be determined by the court and not by as separate suit. By the amendment, one has not to go for a fresh suit but all matters pertaining to that property even if obstructed by a stranger is adjudicated and finality given even in the executing proceedings. We find the expression” any person “ under Sub-Clause (1) is used deliberately for widening the scope of power so that the Executing Court could adjudicate the claim made in any such application under O.21, Rule 97. Thus by the use of the words” any person “ it includes all persons resisting the delivery of possession, claiming right in the property even those not bound by the decree, includes tenants or other persons claiming right on their own including a stranger.” It has also been observed by their Lordships as under: “11. So, under O.21, Rule 101 all disputes between the decree-holder and any such person is to be adjudicated by the Executing Court. A party is not thrown out to relegate itself to the long drawn out arduous procedure of a fresh suit. This is to always the possible hardship both the to the decree-holder and other person claiming title on their own right to get it adjudicated in the very execution proceedings…” 5. A party is not thrown out to relegate itself to the long drawn out arduous procedure of a fresh suit. This is to always the possible hardship both the to the decree-holder and other person claiming title on their own right to get it adjudicated in the very execution proceedings…” 5. Therefore, the order of injunction granted is of no avail to the petitioner herein. The learned counsel for the respondent produced before as an order passed by my learned brother K.Govindarajan, J. in a civil revision petition In C.R.P.No.2374 of 1998 in which the seventh respondent in the E.P. proceedings raised question of limitation after dismissal of C.R.P.No.3141 of 1989, wherein his Lordship has held that the objection having not been raised before the trial court and raised for the first time in revision, was to be dismissed. It would thus appear that all doors of objection and obstruction are closed so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. This civil revision petition is therefore to be dismissed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.12818 of 1998 and 18545 of 1999 are also dismissed. No costs.