JUDGMENT Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing proceedings of Misc. Case No. 20 of 2010, Riyasat Ali and others Vs. Abdul Qayyum and others, which have arisen on application of the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 97 read with section 151, C.P.C. pending before Additional District Judge/Addl. J.S.C.C., court no. 5, Meerut and the order dated 22.4.2010 passed in the said proceedings. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed to be issued the respondent no. 1 to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of shop no. 179-C, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. with payment of decreetal amount with interest to the petitioner pursuant to judgment and decree passed in SCC suit no. 47 of 2004, Abdul Qayyum Vs. Rukshana Begum, within a specified period and fix damages in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Needless to say that prayer no. 2 appears to be misconceived. The court before whom the aforesaid proceedings are pending,cannot be directed to pay decreetal amount with interest as no decree is operating against the court. Probably this prayer was meant for a direction to respondent no. 2. 3. Backdrop of the case is that father of petitioner Sri Hamid Hasan inducted Sri Liyaqat Ali as tenant of shop no. 179-C, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt.. Tenant Liyaqat Ali is said to have expired on 20.10.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner landlord instituted SCC suit no. 47 of 2004, Abdul Qayyum Vs. Smt. Rukhsana Begum for the decree of ejectment and arrears of rent in respect of shop no. 179-C, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt.. The aforesaid suit was decreed vide judgment and order dated 6.10.2007. 4. When the petitioner tried to get the aforesaid decree executed in Execution Case No. 1 of 2008, respondent no. 7- Smt. Shajahan Begum, who is second wife of late Liyaqat Ali alongwith her sons i.e. respondent no. 3 to 6, has objected and resisted the execution of the decree. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition with the above prayer. 5. It is apparent from record that after death of late Liyaqat Ali, husband of respondent no. 2 and 7, the two wives came into possession of the shop. 3 to 6, has objected and resisted the execution of the decree. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition with the above prayer. 5. It is apparent from record that after death of late Liyaqat Ali, husband of respondent no. 2 and 7, the two wives came into possession of the shop. A fresh agreement of rent in respect of the shop in question is alleged to have been entered between the father of petitioner and widow of late Liyaqat Ali i.e. respondent no. 2-Smt. Rukshana Begum, on monthly rent of Rs. 2500/-, to the exclusion of second wife respondent no. 7- Shajahan Begum and her sons. The second wife and her son were not impleaded as party in the aforesaid SCC suit filed by the petitioner, hence they had no knowledge of those proceedings. 6. Order 21, Rule 97, provides thus : " Resistance or obstruction to possession of immoveable property: (1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immoveable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. (2)Where any application is made under sub rule (1), the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. 7. Mandate of the aforesaid provision is that even a third party claiming independent right in the property could resist execution of the decree by seeking adjudication of his objections. Whereas sub rule (2) makes it incumbent upon the court to proceed to adjudicate upon such application in accordance with the procedure laid down. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Shreenath and another Vs. Rajesh and others ( 1998) 4 SCC-543. Regard may also be had to the judgment delivered in Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust (1998) 3 SCC 723 , which has been followed in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and others Vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. And others ( 2002) 1 SCC 662. In paragraph no. Rajesh and others ( 1998) 4 SCC-543. Regard may also be had to the judgment delivered in Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust (1998) 3 SCC 723 , which has been followed in N.S.S. Narayana Sarma and others Vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. And others ( 2002) 1 SCC 662. In paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment, the Apex Court held thus: " ....On a fair reading of the Rule it is manifest that the legislature has enacted the provision with a view to remove as far as possible, technical objections to an application filed by the aggrieved party whether he is the decree holder or any other person in possession of the immoveable property under execution and has vested the power in the executing court to deal with all questions arising in the matter irrespective of whether the curt otherwise has jurisdiction to entertain a dispute of the nature. This clear statutory mandate and the object and purpose of the provisions should not be lost sight of by the courts seized of an execution proceeding. The court cannot shirk its responsibility by skirting the relevant issues arising in the case." 8. In the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner had not recognised rights of the second wife of Liyaqat Ali and her sons after his death and had surreptitiously entered into a rent agreement with respondent no. 2 only, therefore, the rights of respondent no. 7- the second wife and her sons ( respondent no. 3 to 6 in this petition), who have resisted execution of the decree, have to be adjudicated on an application made by them under Order 21Rule 97, C.P.C.. 9. Thus, there appears to be no illegality in the proceedings arising out of objection/application moved by second wife of Liyaqat Ali and her sons for adjudication under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. As held by the Apex Court, the court concerned is empowered to decide all issues arising out of the decree, therefore, the issue of obstruction/ resistance by respondent no. 3 to 7 is valid or not, can be decided by the court below. 10. In the circumstances, the prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings has no force. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the fact that execution is pending, the court concerned is requested to dispose of application of respondent no. 3 to 7 is valid or not, can be decided by the court below. 10. In the circumstances, the prayer for quashing the aforesaid proceedings has no force. The petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of the fact that execution is pending, the court concerned is requested to dispose of application of respondent no. 3 to 7 under Order 21 Rule 97, C.P.C. expeditiously within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.