ORDER Budihal R.B., J. 1. This writ petition is preferred by Sandeepani Niketan Education Society being aggrieved by the order dated 22.4.2015 passed by the Executing Court in Execution Petition No. 2713/2012 on I.A. No. 6 produced as per Annexure 'A' herein and also requested the Court to consequently direct the Court below to consider the objection filed by the petitioner in terms of Section 47 of CPC before issuance of delivery warrant. 2. Petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 6 before the trial Court under Sections 94(e), 151 and order XXI Rule 97(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended r/w Rule 19(3) of the Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice, 1967, as amended. By filing such application, petitioner herein requested the Court that before issuing delivery warrant, the rights of the petitioner-applicant may be considered and determined by the Executing Court. The application is supported by the affidavit of applicant who claims to be the President of petitioner-Education Society wherein it is stated that the Society had filed an application before this Court complaining about dispossession of the petitioner-Society from the premises in question on the ground that they are not bound by the decree under execution and not liable to hand over vacant possession of the premises in question in favour of the decree holder. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by its order dated 29.1.2015. The applicant applied for the certified copy of the said order and on obtaining the same, the society was entitled to take necessary steps in the matter. It is further stated in the affidavit that the decree holder has been proclaiming in the school locality that he is entitled to take possession of the school premises from the applicant at any time and in that regard he claimed to have taken steps before this Court in the matter of obtaining delivery warrant as well as the police help to implement the same. In furtherance of his illegal object, the said decree holder has been falsely claiming that two orders of this Court on the subject matter are empowering him to take delivery of the premises in question and as such, this Court is bound to issue delivery warrant in his favour along with police help. In furtherance of his illegal object, the said decree holder has been falsely claiming that two orders of this Court on the subject matter are empowering him to take delivery of the premises in question and as such, this Court is bound to issue delivery warrant in his favour along with police help. It is also stated that apart from filing the application before executing Court resisting the instant execution petition, they had filed review petition before this Court in Review Petition No. 515/2014, which came to be dismissed by the Court on 9.1.2015 with cost. The dismissal of the said review petition by this Court will not come in the way to pursue their legal right before executing Court having regard to the specific provisions contained under Section 47 and Rule 101 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The applicant has also stated that in the meanwhile the decree holder is hell bent upon precipitating his illegal action of taking delivery of the premises in question from them under the garb of the decree obtained by him against Mrs. Anuradha Shenoy, in her individual capacity, as the then secretary/correspondent of their society, that too with the police help and goonda elements, even though they are not bound by the decree. The annual day celebration of their school is scheduled on 4.2.2015 and the decree holder has told the parents of their students that he is going to take delivery of the premises in question on or before that day. But, they have not received the certified copy of the order passed by the executing Court on 29.1.2015 till date. If they are not given breathing time to take necessary steps in the matter and if the decree holder is given delivery warrant and police help as intended to be sought for by him, then the very purpose of filing the accompanying application will be frustrated. Hence, they have sought the relief as claimed in the application. The said application was resisted by the decree holder by filing objection statement. The Executing Court, after hearing the parties on merits on I.A. No. 6, ultimately, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Executing Court, the petitioner-Education Society is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. The said application was resisted by the decree holder by filing objection statement. The Executing Court, after hearing the parties on merits on I.A. No. 6, ultimately, rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Executing Court, the petitioner-Education Society is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has submitted that it has been held by the Court in the suit filed by the respondent herein that the said Education Society is not the tenant of the premises. The said Education Society has not arrayed as party to the said suit. Therefore, whatever decree that is passed in the suit filed by the respondent against the tenant is not at all binding on the Education Society. Learned counsel further submitted that it is the Education Society which is in possession of the premises running the school and nearly one thousand students are admitted and on the basis of the decree that was obtained in the said suit the decree holder filed execution petition and when the decree holder was in the process of taking delivery warrant, the application I.A. No. 6 was filed. Learned counsel further submitted that the applications I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 though rejected, miscellaneous applications were filed before the Executing Court itself seeking review of the said order and in the said review petition notice is ordered by the Executing Court. When the application is filed under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w Section 151 of CPC, it is as good as independent suit and the said application is to be tried by the Executing Court as if it is a suit giving opportunity to both sides to submit their say in the matter. Hence, dismissal of the review petition by the Court as against the judgment and decree in the suit will not come in the way of the Education Society in pursuing its remedy by filing application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. When the claim of the Education Society is independent, in that case the Executing Court was supposed to conduct detailed enquiry in the matter and then only it ought to have disposed of the application. In this case, no such detailed enquiry was conducted and the application was rejected by the Executing Court in a summary manner. When the claim of the Education Society is independent, in that case the Executing Court was supposed to conduct detailed enquiry in the matter and then only it ought to have disposed of the application. In this case, no such detailed enquiry was conducted and the application was rejected by the Executing Court in a summary manner. Hence, the order of the Executing Court rejecting I.A. No. 6 is patently illegal and not sustainable in law. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: "(i) AIR 1983 SC 684 in the case of State of Bihar and others v. Sri Radha Krishna Singh and others (ii) AIR 2014 SC 1356 in the case of Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (iii) AIR 1997 SC 856 in the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another. (iv) ILR 2003 KAR 2793 in the case of H. Seshadri v. K.R. Natarajan and another." 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder during the course of his arguments submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Before filing I.A. No. 6, the petitioner-Education Society had filed I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 before the Executing Court with the same relief and under the same provisions. The said applications were considered on merits and ultimately, both were rejected by the Executing Court. Though the said order was passed on 29.1.2015 those orders were not challenged just like the order on I.A. No. 6, which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court. When the applications with the similar relief were already considered and disposed of on merits, the subsequent application I.A. No. 6 is hit by the principle of res judicata under Section 11 Explanation VII of CPC. Learned counsel also submitted that even looking to the contents of the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was not able to obtain the certified copy of the said order and hence breathing time is to be given to him in pursuing his remedy as against the said order and the annual day celebrations were also nearing. Hence, it is submitted that when once the applications have already been considered and disposed of on merit, the question of considering the present application will not arise all and on this ground itself the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Hence, it is submitted that when once the applications have already been considered and disposed of on merit, the question of considering the present application will not arise all and on this ground itself the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have perused the grounds urged in the writ petition, impugned order of the trial Court dated 22.4.2015 on the application I.A. No. 6, the other documents produced by the petitioner i.e., judgment in RFA No. 468/2008 and the earlier order passed by the Executing Court on the applications I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 dated 29.1.2015, so also, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein and the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1. 6. Looking to the earlier order passed by the Executing Court dated 29.1.2015 it was the common order passed on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 by the Executing Court wherein I.A. No. 3 was filed under Order 21 Rule 97 r/w Section 151 of CPC requesting the Court not to dispossess the applicant till the right of the decree holder is determined. I.A. No. 4 is also filed under the similar provision wherein it was requested to stay the further proceedings in the Execution Petition. The said applications were resisted by the other side by filing objection statement and ultimately, the Executing Court rejected both the applications on merits. Looking to the order passed by the Executing Court on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4, it is seen that the contentions which were taken by the applicant in I.A. No. 6 were also taken in the earlier applications and those contentions were already considered by the Executing Court and ultimately, the Executing Court has rejected the applications on the ground that the applicant has not made out a case as per Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. Admittedly, even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner herein till now the common order passed on I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 is not at all challenged by way of filing the petition before this Court, but it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review application has been already filed wherein notice has been issued to the other side and the matter is still pending. 3 and 4 is not at all challenged by way of filing the petition before this Court, but it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the review application has been already filed wherein notice has been issued to the other side and the matter is still pending. When the earlier applications were considered on merits and they have been rejected, as it is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder the principles of res judicata under Section 11 Explanation VII of CPC is made applicable even when such orders are passed in the execution proceedings. In this connection, learned counsel for the respondent has drew the attention of this Court to the provision Section 11 Explanation VII of CPC which reads as under: "11. Res judicata. - No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court. Explanation VII - The provisions of this section shall apply to a proceeding for the execution of a decree and references in this section to any suit, issue or former suit shall be construed as references, respectively, to a proceeding for the execution of the decree, question arising in such proceeding and a former proceeding for the execution of that decree." 7. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein which are referred to above. The principles in the said decisions cannot be disputed, but the question is whether the facts and circumstances in the said reported decisions are similar to the facts and circumstances in the case on hand seeking the relief under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. 8. Looking to the materials placed on record the earlier applications were rejected on merits and even in the suit decree granted in favour of the respondent-decree holder has become final. 8. Looking to the materials placed on record the earlier applications were rejected on merits and even in the suit decree granted in favour of the respondent-decree holder has become final. Further, the judgment and decree passed was upheld by the Apex Court and the review petition filed by the petitioner herein before this Court to review the judgment and decree passed in the said RFA also came to be dismissed and it is an admitted fact even according to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court has already considered the entire merits of the case and the contentions of the petitioner-Education Society and it is not the case that without conducting enquiry on the application and without giving an opportunity the Executing Court all of a sudden has proceeded to pass order on I.A. No. 6. The respondent-decree holder has filed objection statement to the said application and the matter was heard on merits. Thereafter, the Executing Court has passed the order on the said application. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application I.A. No. 6 has been summarily dismissed by the Executing Court cannot be accepted at all. In view of the reasoning adopted by the trial Court and as all the contentions which were raised in I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 were considered by the Executing Court extensively, I am of the opinion that the order passed on I.A. No. 6 which is challenged in this petition does not suffer from illegality and there is no merit in this writ petition so as to interfere into the order of the Executing Court and to set aside or modify the order of the Executing Court. Hence, writ petition is hereby dismissed.