JUDGMENT : The petitioners who are third parties to the proceedings filed E.A.No.611 of 2007 in EP.No.692 of 2002 in O.S.No.910 of 1985 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada claiming independent rights in the petition schedule property and stating that the respondents- decree holders are not entitled to dispossess them from the petition schedule property in pursuance of the decree which is sought to be executed, to which the decree holders filed a counter affidavit. The learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge by the impugned docket order dated 18-9-2008 dismissed the E.A. holding that in the light of order dated 5-1-2007 passed by this Court in C.R.P.No. 102 of 2007, the petition is not maintainable in law. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present revision is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No. 102 of 2007, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court upheld the order passed by the Executing Court dismissing the application filed by the tenant resisting execution and not to evict him from the petition schedule property without due process of law. This Court held that Order 21, Rule 97 CPC postulates that an application under the said provision can be filed only either by the decree holder or by the auction purchaser in the execution proceedings and the claim petitioner who does not belong to either, of these two categories cannot maintain such application. 3. A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Silver-line Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust AIR 1998 SC 1754 . while interpreting Order 21 Rule 97 CPC vis-a -vis Rules 98 to 106 and Order 21 Rule 35 held thus: "...it is difficult to agree with the High Court that resistance or obstructions made by a third party to the decree of execution cannot be gone into under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Code. Rules 97 to 106 in Order 21 of the Code are subsumed under the caption "Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser". Rules 97 to 106 in Order 21 of the Code are subsumed under the caption "Resistance to delivery of possession to decree-holder or purchaser". Those rules are intended to deal with every sort of resistance or obstructions offered by any person, Rule 97 specifically provides that when the holder of a decree for possession of immovable property is resisted or obstructed by "any person" in obtaining possession of the property such decree-holder has to make an application complaining of the resistance or obstruction. Sub-rule (2) makes it incumbent on the Court to proceed to adjudicate upon such complaint in accordance with the procedure laid down. It is true that R.99 of O.21 is not available to any person until he is dispossessed of immovable property by the decree-holder. Rule 101 stipulates that all questions "arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99" shall be determined by the executing Court, if such questions are "relevant to the adjudication of the application". A third party to the decree who offers resistance would thus fall within the ambit of Rule 101 if an adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to the execution of the decree. No doubt if the resistance was made by a transferee pendente lice of the judgment-debtor, the scope of the adjudication would be shrunk to the limited question whether he is such transferee and on a finding in the affirmative regarding that point the execution Court has to hold that he has no right to resist in view of the clear language contained in Rule 102. Exclusion of such a transferee from raising further contentions is based on the salutary principle adumbrated in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. When a decree-holder complains of resistance to the execution of a decree it is incumbent on the execution Court to adjudicate upon it. But while making adjudication, the Court is obliged to determine only such question as may be arising between the parties to a proceeding on such complaint and that such questions must be relevant to the adjudication of the complaint. The words "all questions arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 would envelop only such questions as would legally arise for determination between those parties. The words "all questions arising between the parties to a 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. First is that such questions should have legally arisen between the parties, and the second is, such questions must be relevant for consideration and determination between the parties, e.g. if the obstructor admits that he is a transferee pendente We it is not necessary to determine a question raised by him that he was unaware of the litigation when he purchased the property. Similarly, a third party, who questions the validity of a transfer made by a decree-holder to an assignee, cannot claim that the question regarding its validity should be decided during execution proceedings. Hence, it is necessary that the questions raised by the resistor or the obstructor must legally arise between him and the decree-holder. In the adjudication process envisaged in Order 21, Rule 97(2) of the Code, execution Court can decide whether the question raised by a resistor or obstructor legally arises between the parties. An answer to the said question also would be the result of the adjudication contemplated in the subsection". 4. A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Shreenath v. Rajesh AIR 1998 SC 1827 . after considering the provisions under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC held that both either under the old law or the present law the right of a tenant or any person claiming right on his own of the property in case he resists, his objection under Order 21, Rule 97, has to be decided by the Executing itself. after considering the provisions under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC held that both either under the old law or the present law the right of a tenant or any person claiming right on his own of the property in case he resists, his objection under Order 21, Rule 97, has to be decided by the Executing itself. It was further held that both the Executing Court and the High Court have rejected the application of the applicant who is a third party (emphasis supplied) under Order 21, Rule 97 only on the basis of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Usha Jain v. Manmohan Bajaj ( AIR 1980 MP 146 ) and accordingly set aside the order passed by the Courts below directing the Executing Court to consider and dispose of the objections and the application of the petitioners third parties under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC after giving opportunity to the parties in accordance with law. 5. In view of the same, the Executing Court is not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners solely basing upon the observation of this Court which was made in ignorance of the judgments of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. 6. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed and the Executing Court is directed to receive the objections of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above.