Judgment : GURUSHARAN SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1991 filed by petitioner against one Gour Chandra Sen for eviction from the suit house standing over plot no. 533 in village Saikanda of Godda district under Section 14 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was decreed and the said decree was affirmed by this Court on 1/5/1997 in C. R. No. 1056 of 1995. Petitioner thereafter levied Execution Case No. 4 of 1997 for delivery of possession. Opposite parties had filed Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1991 against the petitioner under the provisions of the said Act for eviction from the suit premises, i. e. , plot Nos. 534, 536, 538 and 540 measuring 15 kathas 5 dhurs including the house standing over plot No. 533, which was subject matter of Eviction Suit No. 1 of 1991, which was dismissed on 17. 2. 1993 on the ground that relationship of landlord and tenant was not established. Opposite parties then filed Title suit No. 33 of 1993 for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the aforesaid 15 kathas and odd lands including structure thereon. ( 2 ) WHILE disposing of S. A. No. 347 of 1997 arising out of Eviction Suit No. 3 of 1991. this Court observed that observations/ findings, if any, recorded on the question of title in the eviction suit and/or appeal shall not operate as res-judicata in a properly constituted title suit for declaration of title between the parties. It is said that the said Title Suit no. 33 of 1993, is pending before the competent court, i. e. , court of Settlement Officer, godda. In the aforesaid execution proceedings the petitioner filed a petition (Annexure-ia) informing the Court that "on 6. 5. 2000 on friday in the night time at about 10 p. m. the judgment-debtor brought some criminals armed with illegal firearms and kept them in the tenanted premises. In the aforesaid execution proceedings the petitioner filed a petition (Annexure-ia) informing the Court that "on 6. 5. 2000 on friday in the night time at about 10 p. m. the judgment-debtor brought some criminals armed with illegal firearms and kept them in the tenanted premises. " Gour Chandra Sen judgment debtor also filed a petition (Annexure-2) on 24-5-2000, inter alia, stating therein that jamabandi raiyats forced him to vacate the premises and, therefore, he has no way out but to do so, Thereafter on 30-5-2000 the opposite parties claiming themselves to be jamabandi raiyats filed a petition (Annexure-3)purporting to be under Order XXI, Rules 26, 29 and 97 to 101 of the Code of Civil procedure. ( 3 ) A rejoinder thereto was filed on 3-6-2000. Executing court by impugned order dated 11. 7. 2000 directed the parties to adduce evidence both oral and documentary for hearing and speedy disposal of the objection. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present revision application. ( 4 ) MR. P. K. Prasad, counsel for petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that objectors-opposite parties not only failed to establish relationship of landlord and tenant with the petitioner and to recover possession from him in Title Suit No. 3 of 1991, their suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession over the aforesaid 15 kathas and odd lands including the suit house standing over plot No. 533 is also pending before the competent court, and as such on the ratio of decision of apex Court in Silverline Forum Put. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another, no legal question/ relief for adjudication has arisen between the parties to the proceedings and, therefore, the executing court should not have entertained such objection and rejected it summarily. ( 5 ) MR. Mihir Kumar Jha, Senior counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that it is well settled by now that any person claiming right on his own in the property in case he resists his objection under order XX], Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has to be decided by the executing court itself. Mihir Kumar Jha, Senior counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, submitted that it is well settled by now that any person claiming right on his own in the property in case he resists his objection under order XX], Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has to be decided by the executing court itself. A person holding possession of an immovable property on his own right can always object in the execution proceeding under order XXI, Rule 97 and, therefore, the petition (Annexure-3) could not have been rejected summarily and at this stage this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not interfere with the impugned order whereby the parties have been directed to adduce evidence and the objection is yet to be decided finally on its own merit. ( 6 ) MR. Jha also placed reliance on a decision in N. S. S. Narayana Sarama and others v. M/s Goldstone Exports Pvt. Ltd. and others, in this regard. ( 7 ) THIS revision application was heard and disposed of earlier by this Court on 5-12-2001 and the impugned order was set-aside. Thereafter Civil Review No. 4 of 2002 was filed on the ground that they (Ops. 12 and 13) were also objectors in the executing court, but were not impleaded as opposite parties in the revision application and behind their back the order under revision was set-aside. This Court by order dated 10-5-2002 allowed the review application and directed the revision application to be heard and disposed of afresh. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for adding those two objectors as opposite parties in this revision application on the ground that earlier they were inadvertently left out to be impleaded. Mr. Jha on their behalf submitted that by now this revision application was barred by time so far as those two persons were concerned. It is true that those two persons were not made opposite parties in the revision application and, therefore, order passed by this Court disposing of civii revision application in their absence was set-aside and revision application was directed to be heard afresh in order to give opportunity to those two persons to be heard. In such circumstance, delay caused on account of bona fide mistake in impleading those persons as opposite parties in this revision application is condoned and they are added as Ops. 12 and 13. In such circumstance, delay caused on account of bona fide mistake in impleading those persons as opposite parties in this revision application is condoned and they are added as Ops. 12 and 13. ( 8 ) IT is true that any person claiming independent right over the property which is subject matter of an execution proceeding can resist delivery of possession to the decreeholder in order to save himself from being dispossessed therefrom. In the present case I find that objectors-opposite parties have also filed a suit claiming their independent right, title and interest over plot No. 533 inquestion and after such declaration has also sought for recovery of possession against the present decree-holder petitioner. However, in the present objection petition (Annexure-3)they have claimed their peaceful actual and factual possession over the property in question. In this regard an information given to the executing court by decree-holder and judgment-debtor mentioned above is relevant and it may be that on taking illegal possession the opposite parties inspite of their relief sought for recovery are now claiming actual physical possession over the property in question. ( 9 ) IN the aforesaid circumstance, in my view, although the opposite parties have their independent claim over the property in question and they have also claimed their possession in the objection petition (Annexure-3) but the court cannot loose sight of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and specially pendency of the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession from at the instance of the objectors and, therefore, their objection under order XXI, Rules 97 to 101 was not maintainable. ( 10 ) I, therefore, set aside gthe impugned order and reject the petition (Annexure-3 ). This revision application is allowed. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .