C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both the revision petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 4539 of 1998 arises out of the order dt. 21. 4. 1993 in e. A. No. 27 of 1990 in E. P. No 35 of 1989 in O. S. No. 51 of 1964 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Mahabubabad allowing the E. A. No. 27 of 1990 and consequently dismissing E. P. No. 35 of 1989. C. R. P. No. 279 of 1994 arises out of the order dismissing E. P. No. 35 of 1989. ( 3 ) REVISION petitioners filed O. S. No. 51 of 1964 seeking partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule appended to the plaint. After preliminary decree was passed, they filed I. A. No. 22 of 1969 for passing a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree. On 31. 1. 1972 a final decree, allotting shares to each of the sharers, was passed. Thereafter the revision petitioners filed E. P. No. 35 of 1989 seeking possession of the shares allotted to them under the final decree. In that E. P, first respondent filed E. A. No. 27 of 1990 under Order 21 Rule 97 contending that house bearing No. 2-5-110 is a part and parcel of the old house bearing no. 2-3-88, (which is subject matter of the suit whose decree is sought to be executed) and that he has been in possession of the entire house from over 27 years and has been paying tax to the gram panchayat in his capacity as owner from 1964 onwards till 1978 and came to know, very recently that a final decree was passed in I. A. No. 22 of 1969 in O. S. No. 51 of 1964, and that that final decree is not in accordance with the preliminary decree; the plan enclosed to the warrant is wrong and does not show the correct location and so he cannot be evicted from the house bearing No. 2-5-110. ( 4 ) REVISION Petitioners contested the said E. A. alleging that 1st respondent who is an advocate, and who acted as guardian of some of the defendants in the suit, has no right in any part of the suit property and has no locus standi to file a petition; His contention that he has no knowledge of the suit or decree is not correct. In fact they filed E. P. No. 32 of 1972 for realization of the costs and got attached a part of the house, which is the subject matter of the suit and this E. P. In that E. P. , first respondent filed a claim petition and the same was dismissed and the said order was confirmed by this Court in C. R. P. No. 498 of 1978. After the said E. P. was transferred to the Court of Principal District Munsif, warangal and was re-numbered as E. P. No. 116 of 1975, first respondent again filed E. A. No. 424 of 1987 attacking the final decree. That application was also dismissed. First respondent, who has knowledge of institution of the suit and who has been acting as guardian for defendants 4 and 5 and who filed written statement on their behalf, filed this petition with a view to delay the proceedings. ( 5 ) OTHER respondents did not file either counter or counter affidavits. ( 6 ) IN support of his case, first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-29. On behalf of the revision petitioners one witness was examined as R. W. 1 and Exs. B-1 to B-7 were marked. Exs. C-1 and C-2 were marked from the Court record. ( 7 ) THE Court below framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether this petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be maintained by a third party? 2. Whether any final decree was passed in O. S. No. 51 of 1964 and if so, it is in consonance with the judicial order passed in I. A. No. 22 of 1969? 3. Whether the plea of the petitioner that he is the owner of the house in question is barred by resjudicata? 4. If the finding on issueno. 3 is in negative, what is the nature of possession held by the petitioner over the house in question? 5. To what relief? 3. Whether the plea of the petitioner that he is the owner of the house in question is barred by resjudicata? 4. If the finding on issueno. 3 is in negative, what is the nature of possession held by the petitioner over the house in question? 5. To what relief? ( 8 ) WITHOUT giving a specific finding on point No. 1 the court below impliedly held that the petition is maintainable. On point No. 2 it held that the original of Ex. A. 1 final decree, was prepared by the Court, but the plan attached thereto is not in accordance with the plan prepared by the commissioner, and thus the final decree is not in accordance with the order of the Court dt. 31. 1. 1972, accepting the Commissioner s report. On point No. 3, the learned Judge held that he is not inclined to give any finding as to the nature of the possession of the first respondent i. e. , whether he is in possession thereof in his capacity as owner, as contended by him, or he is holding possession on behalf of his brother and since no finding was given on point No. 3, he observed that he need not give any finding on point No. 4. On point No. 5 he held that since he came to the conclusion that the plan attached to Ex. A-1 does not tally with the plan prepared by the Commissioner, he allowed the E. A. and dismissed the E. P. , giving liberty to the revision petitioners to file a fresh E. P. after obtaining a proper final decree. Hence these revisions. ( 9 ) SINCE an order in a petition filed under Rule 97 of Order 21 CPC is an appealable order, as per Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC, at the time of hearing of these revisions, I questioned the learned counsel for revision petitioners as to how the C. R. P. No. 4539 of 1998 is maintainable. The contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners is that since e. A. No. 27 of 1990 was not disposed of on merits, but was dismissed on the ground that the plan attached to Ex. The contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners is that since e. A. No. 27 of 1990 was not disposed of on merits, but was dismissed on the ground that the plan attached to Ex. A-1 is not in accordance with the plan attached to the Commissioner s report, it tantamounts to the Court below exercising jurisdiction not vested in it and hence the order allowing e. A. No. 27 of 1990 can be questioned under Section 115 CPC. Since E. A. No. 27 of 1990 was not allowed on merits but was allowed merely on the ground that the plan attached to the final decree, whose execution is sought in the E. P. , is not in consonance with the plan prepared by the Commissioner, i accept the contention of the learned counsel for revision petitioners that a revision can be filed against such order. But this does not mean that an appeal does not lie against the order allowing E. A. No. 27 of 1990. So in the peculiar circumstances of the case, revision petitioners have two remedies open to them against the order allowing E. A. No. 27 of 1990 i. e. , Revision, for the Court below exercising jurisdiction not vested in it and appeal, as provided by Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC. ( 10 ) THAT first respondent, i. e. , petitioner in E. A. No. 27 of 1990 acted as the guardian of judgment debtors 3 and 4 during the pendency of the suit is admitted. Mother of the first respondent is the first judgment debtor. First respondent, during cross-examination, admitted that he (as guardian of judgment debtors 3 and 4) preferred an appeal against the preliminary decree in O. S. No. 51 of 1964, and that that appeal was dismissed, and that 3rd judgment debtor, after becoming a major preferred a Second Appeal against the judgment of the appellate Court. He also admitted that he has been filing petitions in the earlier E. Ps claiming a right in the house (in respect of which revision petitioners filed the E. P.) and that all those petitions were dismissed. He also admitted that he has been filing petitions in the earlier E. Ps claiming a right in the house (in respect of which revision petitioners filed the E. P.) and that all those petitions were dismissed. He also admitted that he did not file a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC either during the pendency of the suit or during final decree proceedings seeking to implead him as party to the suit; He also admitted that E. A. No. 28 of 1972 filed by him for raising attachment of the house got attached by the revision petitioners was dismissed, and that the revision preferred by him to this Court against that order was also dismissed on 8. 12. 1973. He also admitted that his brother filed a suit seeking partition of his share in the entire house property (part of which is the subject matter of the E. P.) and some other properties in 1970 in the Sub Court, Warangal and that subsequently that suit was transferred to the Court of Principal District Munsif, Warangal and was re-numbered as O. S. No. 329 of 1974; and that all the parties to this E. P. No. 35 of 1989 and two others are defendants in the said suit, and that that suit, and the appeal preferred against the decree of dismissal were dismissed. ( 11 ) IT is well known that a defendant in a suit for partition can seek partition and separate possession of the share in the property covered by the suit. That is the reason why it is said that all parties to a suit for partition are in the position of plaintiffs. Since first respondent admitted that his brother filed a suit for partition the house property which is the subject matter of the suit filed by revision petitioners and also other properties in 1970 impleading him and all the parties to the e. P. and others as parties to that suit and that that suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appellate Court, it is implied that 1st respondent and his brother have no right in the properties covered by that suit. That decree became final. That decree became final. This fact, coupled with the fact that several other petitions filed by the first respondent claiming right over the house covered by this suit were dismissed clearly shows that the first respondent does not have any right whatsoever in the house covered by this suit. Obviously he, who is living with his mother in the house covered by the suit, taking advantage of the fact of his being an advocate, practicing in the same Court where the E. P. is filed, is putting spokes, and is trying his best to stall the execution processes and is harassing the decree holders by preventing them to take possession of their share. In fact all the adverse orders passed against the 1st respondent operate as res judicata against him and so he cannot be heard to say that he has a right in the E. P. schedule property. ( 12 ) IT is well known that the executing Court has to execute the decree as it is. In RAMESHWAR DAS GUPTA VS. STATE OF U. P. ( AIR 1997 SC 410 ), it is held that the Executing Court cannot travel beyond the order or decree under execution. The Court below should have kept in view the above principle. Instead of giving an adverse finding against the 1st respondent, the Court below for reasons best known to it, skirted over the relevant issue and allowed the E. A. and dismissed the E. P. on the most irrelevant and silly ground, and thereby aided the 1st respondent in achieving his object. ( 13 ) WITH regard to the maintainability of E. A. No. 27 of 1990 filed by the 1st respondent I may usefully refer to the observations of the Supreme court in Para 10 of SILVERLINE FORUM PVT. , LTD. , VS. RAJIV TRUST (AIR 1998 S. C. 1754 AT 1757 ). "the words all questions arising between the parties to the proceeding on an application under Rule 97 would envelop only such questions as would legally arise for determination between those parties. In other words the court is not obliged to determine a question merely because the resistor raised it. The questions which executing Court is obliged to determine under Rule 101 must possess two adjuncts. In other words the court is not obliged to determine a question merely because the resistor raised it. The questions which executing Court is obliged to determine under Rule 101 must possess two adjuncts. First is that such question should have legally arisen between the parties, and the second is, such a question must be relevant for consideration and determination between the parties. . . . . . . . " ( 14 ) IT is rudimentary that a third party to a suit for partition, who has no interest in the property covered by the suit, cannot resist its execution on the basis that the final decree is not in consonance with the plan prepared by the Commissioner appointed during final decree proceeding. If at all it is a judgment-debtor that can take such a plea. Admittedly the petitions filed by the 1st respondent in the earlier E. P. , claiming right in the house, (possession of which is sought to be recovered by the revision petitioners) were dismissed and those orders have become final. Those orders operate as Res Judicata in this petition. A person whose claim under Rule 58 Order 21 CPC was dismissed cannot again reagitate the same by filing a petition under Rule 97 of Order 21 cpc. Thus the two conditions precedent required for the court entertaining the application of the first respondent under Rule 97 of order 21 CPC claiming a right in the property sought to be recovered by the revision petitioners are not satisfied. ( 15 ) IN the above circumstances the unnecessary and unwarranted exercise undertaken by the Court below to find out whether the decree sought to be executed is in consonance with the Commissioner s Report, that too when it is not even alleged that revision petitioners tampered with the certified copies of the final decree granted to them, should only be taken as an aid given to the 1st respondent in achieving his object of delaying the execution. If there was a mistake in the certified copy of the final decree, it was the mistake of the Court or its staff. If there was a mistake in the certified copy of the final decree, it was the mistake of the Court or its staff. Since the Court below is the Court that passed the decree and is also the Court executing it, if it had noticed that there was a mistake in the final decree furnished to the revision petitioners, instead of allowing E. A. No. 27 of 1990 and dismissing E. P. filed by the revision petitioners, it ought to have, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 CPC or by invoking its power under Section 152 CPC, ordered necessary corrections in the copy issued by the revision petitioner, because it is axiomatic that the act of Court should injure none. ( 16 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I hold that E. A. No. 27 of 1990 filed by the 1st respondent is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed and the Court below was in error in dismissing E. P. No. 35 of 1998 on the basis of the application filed by the 1st respondent. Therefore, both the revisions are allowed with costs. E. A. No. 27 of 1990 is dismissed with costs E. P. No. 35 of 1998 is ordered to be restored to file. Advocate fee is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-for both the CRPs.