JUDGMENT : SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 16th March, 2019 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2019 by Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Jamshedpur is under challenge whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 98 of the C.P.C. has been rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have never been made parties to the proceeding pertaining to the Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 and therefore, the decree passed therein is not executable against them and for that reason a petition under the provision of Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been filed but the Court has rejected the same without appreciating the factual aspect and the legal position, therefore, the instant writ petition. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, gone across the pleading made in the writ petition as also the finding recorded in the impugned order. 4. It is evident from the impugned order that Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 has been filed wherein the original dependents have been substituted through Kunti Devi and Balbir Kaur who have filed their common written statement. The substituted defendant namely Balbir Kaur has died in course of pendency of the Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 and thereafter her legal heirs were not substituted and the suit stood abated against her and after that substituted defendant namely Kunti Devi has contested the suit which was decreed and Execution Case No. 02 of 2009 has been filed for execution of that decree. It is further evident that the petitioners are the sons of Late Kuldip Singh and also sons of substituted defendant No. 2 namely, Balbir Kaur who is the mother of both the petitioners. It further transpires that the petitioners on earlier occasion have filed an application under Order XXI Rule 98 of C.P.C. for necessary order declaring the decree dated 02.08.2008 signed on 07.08.2008 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 is not executable against them with respect to the aforesaid quarter but the said miscellaneous application was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2009 against which misc. appeal was filed being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02 of 2010 but the same was also dismissed. 5. appeal was filed being Miscellaneous Appeal No. 02 of 2010 but the same was also dismissed. 5. In view of such factual aspect as is evident from the order impugned that both the petitioners have filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 98 which does clarify that the petitioners were having full knowledge about the pendency of the Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 since the provision of Order XXI Rule 98 contains the provision for orders after adjudication with respect to the determination of the questions referred to in Rule 101 and the provision of Rule 101 provides that a question 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. Provision of Rule 97 of Order XXI stipulates with respect to resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property where the holder of a 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 and if such application would be made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions contained therein while Rule 99 provides provisions for dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser where any person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed 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 and if that application would be made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions contained therein. It is thus evident that a petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 98 has been rejected way back on 25.05.2009 and thereafter the miscellaneous appeal as also been rejected and again a petition under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has been filed which provides the provision for determination of a question by the Court executing the decree which provides that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. 6. The Trial Court after taking into consideration the fact that both the petitioners are related to the said Kunti Devi and they have also invoked the jurisdiction by filing an application under Order XXI Rule 98 of C.P.C. for necessary order declaring the decree dated 02.08.2008 signed on 07.08.2008 passed in Title Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2001 is not executable, the same has been rejected vide order dated 25.05.2009 against which the appeal has also been affirmed and thereafter the trial Court while rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of the C.P.C. has not committed any error warranting an interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view thereof, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.