JUDGMENT M. C. Jain, J. : Heard Sri Sharad Sharma, learned counsel. for the petitioner and Sri S.K. Posti and Sri Rami Srivastava, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application made under order IX Rule 13, C. P. C. to set aside a decree dated 27.11.1999 passed in O. S. No. 364 of 1999. That decree was for possession of certain property. He had even filed a miscel1aneous appeal which, too, failed. Admittedly, the petitioner was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed and setting aside of which was sought by him. It is also noted that the petitioner has already filed a suit no. 100 of 2001 for declaring the decree aforesaid as nul1 and void on the ground of its being a collusive litigation. The petitioner claims that actual1y he is in possession. Order 21 Rule 97 C. P. C. onwards contain elaborate provisions as to when resistance or obstruction is caused by someone to the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or when a person not bound by that decree is dispossessed in execution of a decree. 3. In view of what has been stated above, this Court does not propose to entertain this writ petition. 4. The writ petition is dismissed.