JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri M. Islam learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ravindra Nath Mishra holding brief of Sri J. Nagar on behalf of the Opposite party. 2. This is a civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 9.9.1991 passed in Execution Case No. 214/74 of 1991, Abdul Jabbar v. Sri Niwas Gupta, whereby the objection filed by the revisionist to an application under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. has been rejected by holding that the revisionist/obstructor to the decree, can move an application under Order 21 Rule 99, C.P.C. only after he has been ejected from the property in question and the application under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. has been allowed. 3. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that he had filed an objection to the application of the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. Such objection was filed by the revisionist claiming independent title and possession over the property in question since the time of his ancestors. He also claimed to have raised constructions thereupon and hence could not be dispossessed unless the dispute/resistance was decided under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97/101 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted that under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 95, it is quite clear that the resistance put up is to be removed and the purchaser has to be put in possession by removing any person who refuses to vacate the premises. According to him, Opposite Party is the auction purchaser in execution of the decree and hence the objection filed by the revisionist was rightly rejected by the executing Court. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanzeem-e-Sufia v. Bibi Haliman and others, AIR 2002 SC 3083 and has relied upon Paragraph 12 of the said decision. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanzeem-e-Sufia v. Bibi Haliman and others, AIR 2002 SC 3083 and has relied upon Paragraph 12 of the said decision. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that when the decree holder filed an application for issuance of writ of delivery of possession, the appellant requested that it be treated as an application by the decree holder under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. The Court found that an application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. entitles the objector to be heard before passing any order on the application moved by the decree holder. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and others v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. and others, AIR 2002 SC 251 , for submitting that all relevant issues between the obstructor and the decree holder/auction purchaser are to be decided in an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99, C.P.C. by the executing Court and a separate suit need not be filed by the parties for the said purpose. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record, it appears that the application under Order 21 Rule 95 was made by the auction purchaser for being given delivery of possession of the property in question because when the auction purchaser went to the spot with the police force to execute the decree, the same was resisted by the revisionist. Objections were filed by the revisionist claiming independent title and possession over the property in question and not by virtue of any right, title or interest through the judgment-debtor. The trial Court proceeded to consider such objections filed by the revisionist and has recorded that the decree holder/auction purchaser has not filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. and, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 95, the revisionist can file an application under Rule 99 only after his eviction on the application of the auction purchaser made under Rule 95. The aforesaid direction/finding recorded by the Trial Court has been resisted on behalf of the revisionist and it has been argued that the objection filed by the revisionist was in effect a resistance to an application under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. because the application under Rule 95 does not contemplate resistance on behalf of a person not claiming any rights or possession through the judgment debtor. It has therefore been submitted that the view taken by the Court below that the application under Rule 95 made by the auction purchaser would entitle him to delivery of possession irrespective of the rights of the revisionist, who had obstructed the decree is illegal and cannot be upheld. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanzeem-e-Sufia (supra) has held in Paragraph 12 that the application filed by the decree holder for issuance of writ of delivery of possession in that case was to be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 since the objector has resisted such a decree. It is not disputed that in proceeding under Rule 97, the executing Court has got the jurisdiction to decide all issues raised between the parties and the lengthy procedure of an independent suit claiming right not to be dispossessed from the property covered by the decree of the Court cannot be resorted to. 8. Order 21 Rule 95, C.P.C. is quoted hereunder : “Delivery of property in occupancy of judgment-debtor.—Where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created by the judgment-debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under Rule 94, the Court shall on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same.” 9. The words ‘any person’ appearing in the rule does not refer to a person independently claiming right to possession of the property. It relates to persons referred in the earlier part of the rule in connection with the occupancy of the immovable property. The words ‘any person’ appearing in the rule does not refer to a person independently claiming right to possession of the property. It relates to persons referred in the earlier part of the rule in connection with the occupancy of the immovable property. The jurisdiction of the Court to order delivery under this rule exists only if the property is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor, or of some person on his behalf or of some person claiming under a title created subsequent to the attachment of such property. In case the Court is satisfied on prima facie evidence that the objector is in possession of the property on his own account, it has to reject the application under Order 21 Rule 95, CPC. 10. In the present case, the claim of the revisionist of possession was on his own account and not through the judgment-debtor. The Court was required to investigate into the claim. No such exercise was done and a person prima facie not covered under the rule has been non-suited by the impugned order. There is no- finding recorded in the impugned order that the revisionist/objector was a person in occupancy of the property on behalf of the judgment-debtor or that he was claiming title created by the judgment-debtor subsequent to attachment of the property. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another, AIR 1997 SC 856 , had held in paragraph 5 as quoted hereunder : “In short the aforesaid statutory provisions of Order XXI lay down a complete code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution of decree for possession obtained by a decree-holder and whose attempts at executing the said decree meet with rough weather. Once resistance is offered by a purported stranger to the decree and which comes to be noted by the Executing Court as well as by the decree-holder the remedy available to the decree-holder against such an obstructionist is only under Order XXI, Rule 97 sub-rule (1) and he cannot by-pass such obstruction and insist on re-issuance of warrant for possession under Order XXI, Rule 35 with the help of police force, as that course would amount to by-passing and circumventing the procedure laid down under Order XXI, Rule 97 in connection with removal of obstruction of purported strangers to the decree. Once, such an obstruction is on the record of the Executing Court it is difficult to appreciate how the Executing Court can tell such obstructionist that he must first lose possession and then only his remedy is to move an application under Order XXI, Rule 99, CPC and pray for restoration of possession. The High Court by the impugned order and judgment has taken the view that the only remedy available to a stranger to the decree who claims any independent right, title or interest in the decretal property is to go by Order XXI, Rule 99. This view of the High Court on the aforesaid statutory scheme is clearly unsustainable. It is easy to visualise that a stranger to the decree who claims an independent right, title and interest in the decretal property can offer his resistance before getting actually dispossessed. He can equally agitate his grievance and claim for adjudication of his independent right, title and interest in the decretal property even after losing possession as per Order XXI, Rule 99. Order XXI, Rule 97 deals with a stage which is prior to the actual execution of the decree for possession wherein the grievance of the obstructionist can be adjudicated upon before actual delivery of possession to the decree-holder. While Order XXI, Rule 99 on the other hand deals with subsequent stage in the execution proceedings where a stranger claiming any right, title and interest in the decretal property might have got actually dispossessed and claims restoration of possession on adjudication of his independent right, title and interest dehors the interest of the judgment-debtor. Both these types of enquiries in connection with the right, title and interest of a stranger to the decree are clearly contemplated by the aforesaid scheme of Order XXI and it is not as if that such a stranger to the decree can come in the picture only at the final stage after losing the possession and not before it if he is vigilant enough to raise his objection and obstruction before the warrant for possession gets actually executed against him. With respect the High Court has totally ignored the scheme of Order XXI, Rule 97 in this connection by taking the view that only remedy of such stranger to the decree lies under Order XXI, Rule 99 and he has no locus standi to get adjudication of his claim prior to the actual delivery of possession to the decree-holder in the execution proceedings. The view taken by the High Court in this connection also results in patent breach of principles of natural justice as the obstructionist who alleges to have any independent right, title and interest in the decretal property and who is admittedly not a party to the decree even though making a grievance right in time before the warrant for execution is actually executed, would be told off the gates and his grievance would not be considered or heard on merits and he would be thrown off lock, stock and barrel by use of police force by the decree-holder. That would obviously result in irreparable injury to such obstructionist whose grievance would go overboard without being considered on merit and such obstructionist would be condemned totally unheard. Such an order of the Executing Court, therefore, would fail also on the ground of non-compliance with basic principles of natural justice. On the contrary the statutory scheme envisaged by Order XXI, Rule 97, CPC as discussed earlier clearly guards against such a pitfall and provides a statutory remedy both to the decree-holder as well as to the obstructionist to have their respective say in the matter and to get proper adjudication before the Execution Court and it is that adjudication which subject to the hierarchy of appeals would remain binding between the parties to such proceedings and separate suit would be barred with a view to seeing that multiplicity of proceedings and parallel proceedings are avoided and the gamut laid down by Order XXI, Rules 97 to 103 would remain a complete code and the sole remedy for the concerned parties to have their grievances once and for all finally resolved in execution proceedings themselves.” 12. From a perusal of the aforesaid judgment it will be seen that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the obstructionist’ who alleges to have independent right, title and interest in the decretal property and who is admittedly not a party to the decree would be entitled to maintain his application and resist the execution and the Executing Court would be bound by the procedure prescribed under the aforesaid rules for finally resolving the execution proceedings between the obstructionist and the decree holder. The aforesaid law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court can be applied to a case wherein it is established that the stranger/obstructionist has his own independent right, title and interest to the property in question. However, in case such stranger or obstructionist fails to show an independent right, title or interest in the property in question the provision of Order XXI, Rule 97 to 103 would not be of any help to him inasmuch as he would not be entitled to resist the decree in the absence of any independent rights. 13. The application under Order 21 Rule 95, CPC has a very limited Jurisdiction for the Courts to dispossess a person. Only such persons can be dispossessed who are covered under the first part of the Rule. The Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it in the facts of this case, and even without investigating the claim of the revisionist who objected to being not a person covered under Rule 95. The impugned order clearly cannot be sustained. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below to re-decide the abjection to find out whether the revisionist is or is not a person covered under Rule 95. This revision stands allowed as above. 14. No order is passed as to costs. ————