Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-At the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, petitioner and respondents decree holders writ petition is heard finally as in the petition order is challenged by the petitioner which is in favour of the respondent decree holders only. 2. It will be beneficial rather say necessary to narrate the facts of Civil Suit No. 369/1994 filed by the respondent-landlords predecessor Smt. Satwant Kaur against Dhundh Singhs (originally-tenant) descendants who are also respondents in this writ petition. Said Smt. Satwant Kaur filed the Suit No. 369/1994 for eviction of her tenants wherein decree for eviction was passed against the defendant-tenant by the trial Court on 012.1999 and appeal against the said decree was dismissed by the first appellate Court by Judgment and decree dated 15.07.2003 and thereafter, second appeal was dismissed by this Court by Judgment dated 19.09.2003 and ultimately special leave to appeal was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court by order dated 19.04.2004. Civil Original Suit No. 369/1994 3. The plaintiff Satwant Kaur filed Civil Original Suit No. 369/1994 for eviction against the tenants with the allegations that the suit property was initially let out to one Dhundh Singh on 05.09.1966 on rent of Rs. 200/-per month. Dhundh Singh was doing the business of tent house in the suit premises. He died on 13.08.1991. Dhundh Singhs legal representatives did not pay the rent of the suit property from 01.04.1991 and more than three years passed to that, therefore, the tenant became the defaulter in payment of rent. On this ground decree for eviction was sought by the plaintiff . Another ground taken by the plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur was that the suit property is required because of the personal bona fide necessity of the plaintiff s son. The detail facts are not relevant about the need of the plaintiff s son. To show that there will be no hardship in case decree for eviction is passed against the legal representative of the original tenant, the plaintiff submitted that Defendant No. 1 got the plot measuring 60 ft. x 40 ft. and constructed five shops over it which have been let out by him and the defendant also got the area of 10,000/-sq. ft. where they are doing their tent business. On these grounds, the plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur filed Suit No. 369/94 against legal representatives of Dhundh Singh. 4. x 40 ft. and constructed five shops over it which have been let out by him and the defendant also got the area of 10,000/-sq. ft. where they are doing their tent business. On these grounds, the plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur filed Suit No. 369/94 against legal representatives of Dhundh Singh. 4. The defendants submitted written statement with the pleas that in fact the rent was not accepted by the landlord from the month of April, 1991 despite tender of the rent by the defendants. When the plaintiff did not accept the rent, the Defendants No. 2 and 3 sent rent through money order for the period April, 1991 to September, 1991 on 110.1991. The landlord Smt. Satwant Kaur did not accept the rent sent by the money order then the defendants sent pay order dated 210.1991 of Rs. 1,200/-alongwith a registered letter to the plaintiff which too was not accepted by the landlord Smt. Satwant Kaur. Thereupon the defendants gave a notice through their Advocate to the plaintiff on 30.10.1991 asking the plaintiff to disclose her bank account number so that the rent may be deposited in the bank account which is permissible under the provisions of Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950"), then the plaintiff did not respond to the defendants notice then the defendants started depositing the rent under Section 19-A of the Act of 1950. By this the defendants already deposited rent for the shop in dispute upto March, 1995 whereas the suit was filed on 20.10.1994. According to the defendants, the defendants have not committed default in payment of the rent. The defendants seriously contested about the alleged need of the plaintiff s son and took a plea that in the life time of Dhundh Singh, a suit for eviction was filed by the landlord which was dismissed by the trial Court on 16.04.1977. However, the appeal was allowed by the first appellate Court and Defendants No. 2 to 5 preferred second appeal before the High Court which was allowed by the High Court and in that decree, the part of the shop measuring 14 ft. x 14 ft. was delivered to the plaintiff for the business of the plaintiff s son. The defendants emphatically submitted that they are doing business of the tent house in the suit shop. 5. x 14 ft. was delivered to the plaintiff for the business of the plaintiff s son. The defendants emphatically submitted that they are doing business of the tent house in the suit shop. 5. After more than five years of the trial, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court by the Judgment and decree dated 112.1999. The defendants, legal representatives of original tenant Dhundh Singh, preferred Regular First Appeal No. 19/2000 which was dismissed by the Court of Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur on 15.07.2003. Not satisfied with the decree of dismissal of the appeal of the defendants, the defendants preferred S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 221/2003 before this Court which was dismissed by this Court on 19.09.2003. At the time of dismissal of the appeal of the defendants, a request was made on behalf of the defendants that some time may be granted to the defendants to vacate the suit premises, upon which this Court granted time to the defendants to vacate the suit premises by 31.03.2004. For this indulgence, a condition was put by this Court that the defendants shall submit a written undertaking before the trial Court that the defendants shall handover the vacant possession of the property in dispute to the respondent by or before 31.03.2004 and shall also pay entire decreed amount decreed by the Courts below as well as the costs of the second appeal and shall further pay all arrears of rent if due and rent month by month till the tenants vacates the suit premises. 6. The defendants submitted written undertaking in pursuance of this Courts Judgment dated 19.09.2003 passed in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 221/2003 before the trial, i.e., in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), City (South), Udaipur, copy of which is placed on record of the present writ petition by the respondent legal representatives of the original plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur. 7. The defendants after furnishing that undertaking before the trial Court filed special leave to appeal before the Honble Apex Court but could not get the stay order in their favour. The defendants submitted an application in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 221/2003 for extension of time for vacating the suit shop. The application was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 23/2004. The defendants submitted an application in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 221/2003 for extension of time for vacating the suit shop. The application was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 23/2004. Time was sought on the ground that defendant-tenants S.L.P. is likely to be listed before the Supreme Court on 02.04.2004 and the defendants-tenants are hopeful that they may get stay order from the Honble Supreme Court. This Court granted further time to the defendants by order dated 12.04.2004 and extended time for vacating the suit premises up to 20.04.2004. On 19.04.2004 special leave to appeal (Civil) 23491/2003 preferred by the defendants was dismissed by the Honble Apex Court. However, the Honble Apex Court also granted more time to the defendants to vacate the suit shop which is, by 310.2004., on the defendants furnishing usual undertaking within two weeks from the order of the Honble Apex Court. To take the benefit and to protect the possession, the defendants submitted further written undertaking before the trial Court in pursuance of the order passed by the Honble Apex Court on 19.04.2004 wherein the defendants unequivocally further submitted that the appellant shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit shop to the landlord on 310.2004 and shall pay the cost of the appeal and arrears of rent. This undertaking is dated 01.05.2004. 8. Despite all above facts and furnishing of undertaking by the defendants (admitting themselves to be tenant in possession), in pursuance of this Courts Judgment dated 19.09.2003 and further in pursuance of the order of the Honble Apex Court dated 19.04.2004, the possession was not delivered to the landlord by the defendants. The above facts are relevant because objection petition has been filed against the execution of the same decree passed in C.O. No. 369/1994 and upheld up to Supreme Court. The petitioner Lalitas claim is that she is wife purchaser of the business of above tenants and is tenant in occupation of the suit shop and she is not bound by the decree passed in Civil Original Suit No. 369/94 dated 112.1999 and, therefore, the said decree cannot be executed. Claim of Smt. Lalita-petitioner 9. Smt. Lalita firstly, filed the civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur on 29.04.2004. Copy of the plaint submitted by the respondent as Annexure R. 3/10. Claim of Smt. Lalita-petitioner 9. Smt. Lalita firstly, filed the civil suit in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur on 29.04.2004. Copy of the plaint submitted by the respondent as Annexure R. 3/10. The petitioner Lalita in her suit, admitted that the defendants in the Suit No. 369/94 were tenants in the suit shop on monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month and she also admitted that they were doing the business of tent house. She also admitted that the said business was from the time of Dhundh Singhs ancestor of the Judgment -debtors of the above suit. According to Smt. Lalita, the defendants of Suit No. 369/94 were not interested in continuing with the business of tent house and ultimately they sold their business to plaintiff s husband deceased Aryan Lal. It was done with the consent of decree-holder Smt. Satwant Kaur. She agreed that she will let out the suit shop to Smt. Lalitas husband Narayan Lal on monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. In these circumstances, deceased Narayan Lal purchased all goods of the tent house from the heirs of deceased Dhundh Singh and rent deed was executed for the suit shop between Smt. Satwant Kaur and Lalitas husband Narayan Lal on 10.09.1992. Original of the rent deed was kept by Narayan Lal and copy was given to Smt. Satwant Kaur. According to Lalita, Smt. Satwant Kaur, the landlord took Rs. 20,000/-as advance rent from Narayan Lal and handed over possession of the suit shop to Narayan Lal. Rs. 19,950/-was adjusted against the rent up to the period 31.05.1997. The remaining Rs. 50/-was adjusted against the rent of next month and rent for the month of June, 1997, Rs. 350/-was paid to Smt. Satwant Kaur. Thereafter, according to said Lalita, rent of the suit shop was regularly paid to Smt. Satwant Kaur. However, according to the plaintiff no receipt was given by Smt. Satwant Kaur for the rent which she received. Narayan Lal died on 11.08.1999. Smt. Lalita stated that from the life time of her husband she was also used to sit in the shop and was doing the business with her husband, therefore, she became the tenant in the suit shop. Narayan Lal died on 11.08.1999. Smt. Lalita stated that from the life time of her husband she was also used to sit in the shop and was doing the business with her husband, therefore, she became the tenant in the suit shop. According to Lalita in the last days of month of March and in the beginning period of April, she came to know from the neighbour shop-keepers that some litigation is going on in between Smt. Satwant Kaur and the legal heirs of Dhundh Singh, upon which Lalita enquird and found all facts relating to Suit No. 369/1994 and appeals against the Judgment and decree passed in appeal. At this stage, it will be worthwhile to mention here that as per the copy of the plaint, the plaint bears the date 09.04.2004 whereas by the order of this Court dated 12.04.2004 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal Application No. 23/2004, the tenants of the Suit No. 369/93 were supposed to delivered the possession of the suit shop by or before 20.04.2004. 10. Since Smt. Satwant Kaur died during the pendency of the first appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 112.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 369/94, therefore, the legal representative of Smt. Satwant Kaur were impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by Smt. Lalita alongiwth defendants of the Suit No. 369/94. The legal representatives of Smt. Satwant Kaur contested the injunction application filed by Lalita in the suit which she filed in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur challenging the executablity of the decree for the property in dispute. The legal representative of Smt. Satwant Kaur when found that Lalita has come with rent deed dated 10.09.1992, they submitted criminal complaint under Sections 420, 466, 467, 471, 474 and 120-B, IPC, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate (South), Udaipur and the complaint was sent to the police station under Section 156(3), CrPC, on which FIR No. 166/2004 was registered. The concerned investigating officer submitted an application before the civil Court on 25.08.2004 and prayed that the original deed dated 10.09.1992 may be given to the investigating agency so that the same may be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. The concerned investigating officer submitted an application before the civil Court on 25.08.2004 and prayed that the original deed dated 10.09.1992 may be given to the investigating agency so that the same may be examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. This application was seriously opposed by Smt. Lalita but the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur on 17.09.2004 ordered that the deed dated 10.09.1992 may be given to the investigating officer for F.S.L. Examination and fixed the date in the case on 20.09.2004. Just after passing the order by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Udaipur, Lalitas Advocate submitted an application that the plaintiff Lalita is proposing to prefer writ petition to challenge the order of the learned Additional District Judge No 2, Udaipur dated 17.09.2004, therefore, the original document may not be handed over to the concerned S.H.O. On this application, the Court granted one months time to Smt. Lalita for obtaining the stay order from the High Court against the order dated 17.09.2004. It has not made clear whether said was challenged or not but it is clear that said order of the trial Court was not set aside by any Court. 11. In the suit filed by Smt. Lalita (present petitioner), the trial Court by a detailed order dated 110.2004 dismissed the present petitioners injunction application. It appears from Annexure R. 3/13 that F.S.L. examined the deed dated 10.09.1992 set up by Smt. Lalita-petitioner and opined that the signatures in question are forged one. On 210.2004, the present petitioner submitted an application before the trial Court seeking permission to withdraw the suit which was seriously objected by the legal representatives of Smt. Satwant Kaur, decree holders but it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner is withdrawing the suit unconditionally, therefore, even no cost be imposed against the petitioner but the trial Court permitted the petitioner-plaintiff to withdraw the suit and awarded cost of Rs. 2000/-to the contesting defendants legal representatives of Satwant Kaur. Petition Under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98, CPC. 12. 2000/-to the contesting defendants legal representatives of Satwant Kaur. Petition Under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98, CPC. 12. After all above proceedings and particularly after unconditional withdrawal of the suit by the present petitioner, the petitioner submitted an objection petition under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98, CPC to resist the issuance of possession warrant in execution of the same decree dated 112.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 369/94 on the same facts and ground which were the facts and grounds pleaded by the petitioner in her suit which was withdrawn by her unconditionally. The objection petition was seriously contested by the decree holders. However, the executing Court did not frame point for determination, therefore, aggrieved against the order of the executing Court dated 01.02.2005, to proceed without framing any point for determination, the petitioner Smt. Lalita preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 928/2005 which though was dismissed by this Court but with some observations, upon which the petitioner Smt. Lalita submitted an application under Section 151, CPC, before the executing Court and prayed that point for determination may be framed and the petitioner may be permitted to produce oral evidence. The executing Court framed the point for determination on 08.04.2005. The petitioner also submitted an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, before the executing Court and sought stay of execution of the decree dated 112.1999 passed in Suit No. 369/94. Said application was allowed by the executing Court by order dated 15.04.2005. The decree holders legal representatives of the original plaintiff Smt. Satwant Kaur preferred appeal against the order of the executing Court dated 15.04.2005 which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur by a detail order dated 18.08.2005. Hence this writ petition has by the petitioner Smt. Lalita objector, objecting the issuance of the possession warrant for taking possession of the shop in dispute in execution of the decree dated 112.1999 passed in Civil Original Suit No. 369/94. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon several Judgment s of Honble Apex Court and of this Court, vehemently submitted that once an objection petition is filed by the person in possession of the property for which the decree is sought to be executed then if the said objector is not party in the suit and is not bound by the decree, the possession warrant cannot be issued. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, admittedly the decree was passed not against the petitioner and the petitioner is in possession of the shop in dispute, therefore, the petitioner is not bound by the decree. Till the petitioners right, title and interest in the suit property are decided, the executing Court cannot issue warrant for possession so as to evict the petitioner from the shop property. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the entire scheme as provided under the heading of "Resistance to delivery of possession to decree holder or purchaser" and under Rules 97 to 106, it is clear that the complete procedure has been given in these rules for proceeding by the executing Court where third party has raised objection against the issuance of possession warrant. As per Sub-rule (2) of Rule 98, once decree is resisted or obstructed by any person, the Court can only proceed to decide and adjudicate upon the issue raised by the objector in the light of the pleas taken by the decree holders and there is no provision under any of the rules which provides that simultaneously the executing Court can issue possession warrant. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that unless and until rights of the objector are decided, the decree cannot be executed to evict the objector. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in fact all rights and questions about the title and interest in the property claimed by the objector can only be decided under Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101 and not in a separate suit. Any order passed under these rules is decree as provided under Rule 103 of Order 27, CPC. Therefore, it will be unjust to oust a person in possession claiming his/her right, title or interest in the property during investigation of his/her claim. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that same is the view taken by the Honble Apex Court also in the various Judgment s as well as by this Court also in subsequent Judgment s. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in this case, the objection petition has been entertained by the executing Court and the executing Court has framed the issue for trial. The objection petition can be decided on the basis of the affidavit or by some summary procedure as held by the Honble Apex Court, therefore, during this enquiry, the possession warrant cannot be issued by the executing Court in any case and particularly in this case where so many issues have been framed by the executing Court and the executing Court is proceeding to decide the issues. 14. The learned Counsel for the respondents decree holders vehemently submitted that this is a clear case of abuse o