ORDER : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed for declaration and possession against the State Government by non-petitioner No.1 in the year 1978 and the same was decreed on 19.09.1997 (Annexure-P/10). The appeal preferred by the State against the said judgment and decree was dismissed for non-prosecution. The restoration application preferred by the State was rejected by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the said order. 3. An execution petition was filed by the non-petitioner, in pursuance of which part possession was taken by non-petitioner No.1. The petitioner herein has filed objections under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC (Annexure-P/7). An application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was also preferred by non-petitioner No.1, which was allowed and the objection petition filed by the present petitioner was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order allowing the application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by the High Court, against which the petitioner preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Annexure-P/4 passed the following order on 15.12.2015 :- ". . . . After hearing counsel for the rival parties at some length, a joint proposal was made by them to the Court, that the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded back to the trial court for fresh adjudication, on the issue of maintainability as well as, on merits. And that, the suit be decided, only after the rival parties have been granted liberty to lead their evidence. . . . . . " 4. The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC before the trial court, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.12.2016. 5. It is also contended by counsel for the petitioner that Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev is a minor, who is owner of the property. The petitioner is tenant of Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev, and therefore, the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC wherein issues have been framed, the court is supposed to decide the issue whether the property is property of Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev. 6. The petitioner is tenant of Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev, and therefore, the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC wherein issues have been framed, the court is supposed to decide the issue whether the property is property of Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev. 6. It is further contended that all the objections in the petition are to be determined by the court under Order 21, Rule 101 CPC. Thus, it is contended that the court below has committed error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC. It is also contended that the Jagir Commissioner vide order dated 18.04.1963 (Annexure-P/9) has declared the property as private property of Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev, and therefore, Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev was a necessary party. 7. It is also contended that Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev being a minor, it is for the court to watch the interest of the minor. It is also contended that the judgment and decree wherein the court held that Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev is not a necessary party, is not binding, as the present petitioner and Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev were not party to that suit. 8. I have considered the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned order as well as the additional affidavit and documents annexed therewith in support of the writ petition. 9. It is pertinent to note that in the suit preferred by the non-petitioner, objections were raised by the State Government that Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev is a necessary party. The court in that suit framed issues and decided the same against the State Government. The appeal preferred against the same has been rejected. 10. The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the court is required to determine all the questions under Order 21, Rule 101 CPC, do not help the present petitioner as under Order 21, Rule 101 CPC, the court is required to consider 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. The issue whether Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev is the owner of the property is already there before the court and the same can be decided by the court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. 11. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court, both the parties made a joint proposal and the Apex Court directed the trial court to adjudicate the issue of maintainability as well as on merits after the rival parties have been granted liberty to lead their evidence. Before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the order of Jagir Commissioner was annexed, but no request was made before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for impleading Murti Shri Jawan Swaroopeshwar Ji Mahadev as party to the objection proceedings. The trial court has therefore, in the right perspective rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC as the trial court is now supposed to decide the matter in light of the directions of the Apex Court. There is no ground for interference in the impugned order. 12. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The stay application also stands disposed.