JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeals have been filed by the appellant against the order dated 1.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional Dist. Judge No. 3, Udaipur in Civil Miso. Case No. 36/2008, Civil Misc. Case No. 37/2008 and 35/2008 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the applications of the appellants - objectors under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 C.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Arun Bhansali stated that the possession of the suit premises in question from the present appellants has been taken by the respondent - decree holder on 6.9.2009 and therefore, these appeals have become infructuous with the execution of decree already having taken place against the present appellants. 3. He further relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Sinhna v. Dina Ram & Ors. reported in (2008) 7 SCC 144 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the legal position that for invoking Rule 102, it is enough for the decree holder to show that the person resisting the possession or offering obstruction is claiming his title to the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed and sought to be executed against the judgment debtor. If the said condition is fulfilled, the case falls within the mischief of Rule 102 and such applicant cannot place reliance either on Rule 98 or Rule 100 Order 21. He further submitted that since the appellants are admittedly claiming their possession after filing of the present suit, therefore, the applications filed by the appellants under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 C.P.C. have been rightly rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr. T. Gupta on the other hand submitted that similar objections filed by other persons are still pending with the learned executing Court also and therefore, the present appeal has not become infructuous with the possession of shops in question having been taken from the present appellant Ganpat Lal (two shops) and Mahaveer Chand (one shop). 5. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court is of the opinion that in view of aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court and fact that possession of shops in question has already been taken from the present appellants, these appeals filed by the appellants - objectors have been rendered infructuous and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage. If upon decision of objections of other objectors, the present appellants have any fresh cause to approach the learned Executing Court below, they would be at liberty to do so. 6. The present appeals are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. *******