1. Mst. Farei D/o Ahmad Ganai R/o Bagati Kanipora, Tehsil Chadoora, District Budgam, co-sharer and close relation of the petitioner, sold a plot of land measuring I Kanal comprising Survey No. 361/124 vide sale deed dated 21.05.2005 to Shri Mohd Abdullah Sheikh S/o Gh. Mohd Sheikh R/o Gogu Tehsil and District Budgam. The petitioners cxonvinced that they had right to purchase in respect of the aforesaid land as co sharers, decided to exercise the right and accordingly filed a Civil Suit tilted Haji Mohd Shaban Ganai and anr. v. Mohd Abdullah Ganai and anr., registered as 152/Numbari dated 13.10.2005 in the Court of District Judge, Budgam. 2. Shri Mohd Abt'ullah-vendee and Mst. Farzi-vendor were arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The suit was assigned to the Court of learned Sub Judge Budgam. The suit was decreed in exparte on 29th June, 2006. The petitioners were directed to deposit rest of the consideration amount (less by l/5th already deposited), with the Court for its payment to the judgment debtors. The petitioners after suit was decreed in their favour, filed an execution petition on 19.01.2008. 3. Shri Mushtaq Ahmad—present respondent, filed a Civil Suit during pendency of the execution proceedings, on 23.01.2008, registered as 233/Numbari, for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners and one Mohd Ashraf Baba. 4. The respondent's case before the Trial Court was that he had purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 5th October, 2007, from Shri Mohd Ashraf Baba (defendant 3) in the suit and the decree obtained by the petitioners in Civil Suit titled Mohd Shaban Ganai and anr. v. Mohd Abdullah Ganai and anr. was outcome of fraud and ineffective and in operative against his rights. The respondent pleaded that the suit land was sold by Mohd Abdullah to one Khursheed Ahmad, who sold it to Mohd Ashraf Baba defendant 3 in the suit, from whom the respondent purchased the suit land vide sale deed dated 5th October, 2007. The respondent prayed for declaratory decree declaring the Judgment and decree dated 19th February, 2007 in the suit titled Haji Mohd Shaban Ganai and anr. v. Mohd Abdullah Ganai and anr., on 19th February, 2007 as null and vide and a declaratory decree declaring the respondent owner in possession of the suit land. The respondent prayed for declaratory decree declaring the Judgment and decree dated 19th February, 2007 in the suit titled Haji Mohd Shaban Ganai and anr. v. Mohd Abdullah Ganai and anr., on 19th February, 2007 as null and vide and a declaratory decree declaring the respondent owner in possession of the suit land. The respondent also sought permanent injunction decree restraining the petitioners from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land. 5. The petitioners to seek rejection of the plaint filed an application before the Trial Court on 19.02.2008 under order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The petitioners' case was that the suit was barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. The case set up was that the respondent as transferee from the Judgment debtor was claiming under him and was to approach the executing Court with his claim, in terms of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and that suit was barred under the said provision. 6. The learned Trial Judge vide order dated 16.06.2008, dismissed the application. Learned Trial Judge was of the opinion that Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, was not at all attracted as the respondent (plaintiff) was not purchaser of the suit land at sale in execution of decree, apprehending dispossession by the decree holder. 7. The Trial Court order dated 16.06.2008, dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is questioned in the present revision petition on the ground that the Trial Judge has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him under law; that the impugned order is in conflict with the mandate of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and that the order depicts mis-appreciation of the case projected and misapplication of law. 8. The changes made by amendment in Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101 have broadened the scope of proceedings arising from applications under Rules 97 99, and 101 to include all questions arising between the parties including a person not party to the execution proceedings, relevant to the adjudication of the applications including questions as to the title of such parties/persons in property. The orders passed in such inquiries are given the force of decrees and made appealable. To understand the ambit and scope of inquiry under Order 21 Rule 101 it would be appropriate to extract aforesaid three Rules hereunden- 97. The orders passed in such inquiries are given the force of decrees and made appealable. To understand the ambit and scope of inquiry under Order 21 Rule 101 it would be appropriate to extract aforesaid three Rules hereunden- 97. Resistance or obstruction to possession ofimmoi'able property (1) Where the holder of the decree for the possession of immovable 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. 99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser (1) Where any person other than the judgement-debtor is disposed of immovable property by the holder, of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. (2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. 101. Questions to be determined All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions. 9. The question that calls for an answer in this revision petition is, as to whether a person not party to the execution proceedings, apprehending dispossession under a decree is required to make use of Order 21 Rule 99 to approach the executing Court complaining of likelihood of his dispossession in the event decree is executed and asking for determination of his rights in respect of the suit property. There is no difficulty as regards a persons who is already dispossessed of the immovable property by the decree holder from such property or purchaser thereof. The dispossessed person not a party to the execution proceedings, can in terms of Rule 99 approach the executing Court with an application complaining of such dispossession. The executing Court after holding inquiry contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 may return a finding that such person was not liable to be dispossessed, direct restoration of the possession to him without compelling such person to go for a fresh suit. However, the facts of the case in hand are diffrent from the facts envisioned by Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. Here the respondent has not been dispossessed of the immovable property that forms subject matter of the decree and possession whereof is to be given to the petitioner in execution of the decree. The respondent in the present case on the other hand is in possession of the subject matter of the decree and apprehending that he may be dispossessed, has filed a suit seeking a declaratory decree declaring the decree null and void, and a permanent injunction decree perpetually restraining the decree holders (petitioners) from interfering with his possession. 10. Learned trial Judge on going by the plain meaning of Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 CPC held tha t as neither the petitioners (decree holders) had made an applica tion under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC complaining that execution of decree was resisted or obstructed by the respondent nor had respondent made an application in terms of Order 21 Rule 99 CPC complaining that he had been dispossessed by the decree holder in execution of the decree, Order 21 Rule 101 CPC was not at all attracted and that the suit commenced by the respondent was not barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. 11. The petitioners' case is that as all questions, including question relating to right, title or interest in the property, arising between the parties or even a stranger to the execution proceedings, are to be determined by the Court dealing with the application and not by a separate suit, the right course for the respondent was to approach the executing Court with his application and not institute a fresh suit. 12. 12. It is important to note that the order 21 Rule 101 CPC refers to questions that arise in a proceedings on Order 21 Rule 101. In order to attract Order 21 Rule 101 CPC, it is necessary that the matter must be one that is to be agitated in an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99. This again leads us to the question that was identified at the outset i.e. whether a person who has not been actually dispossessed of the immovable property but apprehends his dispossession under execution of a decree is also to fallback upon Order 21 Rule 99 and make an application to the executing Court. The object obviously is to get all the issues including issues of any title or rights in the subject matter of the decree in the execution proceedings so that the parties to the execution proceedings as also all those claiming any interest in the subject matter of the decree, are not pushed to multiplicity of litigation and all rights relating to the subject matter of the decree, are determined and decided, once for all. This is the reason that the order made after inquiry contemplated under Order 21 Rule 101 has been made appealable. 13. So viewed, a purposive and liberal construction is to be placed on Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC, so that the object of the amendment is advanced. When such an interpretation is placed on the aforesaid Rules of Procedure, we are bound to conclude that a person apprehending his dispossession, in execution of the decree is also to press into service Order 21 Rule 99 CPC to voice his grievance and get his rights determined vis-a-vis the immovable property forming subject matter of the decree. It would be irrational to say that a person in possession of immovable property forming subject matter of the decree, according to him, in his own right must wait for his dispossession and only thereafter make use of Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC to get his rights in such property determined. It would be irrational to say that a person in possession of immovable property forming subject matter of the decree, according to him, in his own right must wait for his dispossession and only thereafter make use of Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC to get his rights in such property determined. Against the said backdrop the logical and rational interpretation of Order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 CPC would lead to the only conclusion that a person in possession of immovable property forming subject matter of the decree, is to file an application in terms of aforesaid Provision before the Executing Court to get his right's determined and also an order against his dispossession pending determination of his rights. While holding so, I draw support from law laid down in Brahmadco Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal 1997(3) SCC 694 , Shreenath v. Rajesh 1998(4) SCC 543 and Tanzeem-e-Sufia v. Bibi Haliman 2002 AIR SCW 354. 14. The next question that arises for consideration is whether Order 21 Rule 99 CPC is to be interpreted as an enabling provision and one of the options available to a person in possession of the immovable property forming subject matter of the decree independent of a suit. In other words whether such a person may in addition to an application under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC also file a civil suit seeking a declaratory decree declaring the judgement and decree execution whereof is sought, ineffective and inoperative against his rights and an injunction decree restraining the decree holder from dispossessing him from said property. The answer must be an empathic no. In such a case a civil suit would be barred in terms of Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. The reason being that if a person in possession of the property claiming an independent right to possess the property is held to be at liberty to file an application under Order 21 Rule 99 CPC as well as a civil suit, the very purpose of amendment incorporated in Order 21 Rules 97. 99 and 101 would get frustrated. 15. For the reasons discussed above, learned Trial Judge erred while holding that the respondent's suit was not barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and dismissing the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 16. 99 and 101 would get frustrated. 15. For the reasons discussed above, learned Trial Judge erred while holding that the respondent's suit was not barred under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC and dismissing the petitioners' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 16. Resultantly, the revision petition is allowed and the respondent's plaint rejected in terms of Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC. The respondent would be at liberty to file an application in terms of Order 11 Rule 99 CPC complaining to the executing Court that he was likely to be dispossessed, ignoring his rights in the suit property and ask the executing Court to determine his rights in respect of the immovable property in his possession as against the decree holder and protect his possession till his rights Are determined. Allowed.