JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Petitioner, by way of present petition, has assailed order dated 19.05.2022, passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Objection Petition No.361 of 2021, preferred in Execution Petition No.103 of 2014, titled as Mittar Bhushan vs. Amar Chand Negi & another. 2. Respondent No.1-Amar Chand Negi, in furtherance to agreement to sell executed by seller respondent No.2-Jhabe Ram, had filed suit for Specific Performance of Agreement, which was decreed on 26.05.2004 and the said judgment and decree was upheld up till Supreme Court. Thereafter, Amar Chand Negi, filed Execution Petition No.103 of 2014, titled as Amar Chand Negi vs. Jhabe Ram etc., which is pending before Senior Civil Judge, Kullu. 3. During pendency of Execution Petition, Mittar Bhushan petitioner preferred Objection under Section 47 of the Code Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) claiming that being a co-sharer he had preferential right over the suit land under Section 22 of the Indian Succession Act. In objection, he offered payment of sale consideration alongwith interest, but reserving his right to file suit under Section 22 of the Indian Succession Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that being a co-sharer in the property, objector has preferential right to purchase the same and, therefore, before entering into an agreement to sell with Decree Holder Amar Chand Negi, Judgment Debtor-Jhabe Ram should have offered sale of the property to his co-sharer for having their preferential right as provided in Section 22 of the Indian Succession Act and thus, the Objector has a right to file Objection Petition, for claiming his preferential right, and, therefore, Senior Civil Judge by dismissing the Objection has committed illegality, material irregularity and mistake in law. 5. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder has submitted that execution of judgment and decree, which has attained finality up till the Supreme Court, cannot be avoided and stalled for advancing claim by Objector under Section 22 of the Indian Succession Act, who is not party to the suit, and appropriate course for the Objector, to claim any right over the suit property if any, available under law, was to file an appropriate suit for claiming such right. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the Decree Holder-respondent No.1 has relied upon pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Valliyil Sreedevi Amma vs. Subhadra Devi and others, reported in AIR 1976, Kerala 19, which has been referred and approved by the Supreme Court in its judgment passed in Ashutosh Chaturvedi vs. Prano Devi alias Parani Devi and others, (2008) 15 SCC 610 . 7. The Supreme Court in Ashutosh Chaturvedi’s case has observed as under:- “19. The decision of the Kerala High Court also provides for a right upon a co-sharer to file a suit for enforcing such a right, stating : (Valliyil Sreedevi Amma vs. Subhadra Devi, AIR 1976 Kerala 19) "6….The object of sub-section (1) as we understand it is that in cases where by virtue of intestate succession under the Act any interest in immovable property has devolved upon two or more heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his interest in the property the other heirs should have a preferential right to acquire the interest which is so proposed to be transferred. The said intention of Parliament can be effectuated only if we consider the section as conferring an enforceable right on the heirs other than the one who proposes to transfer his interest. The section confers on such co-heirs a preferential right to acquire the interest which is proposed to be transferred by the other co-heir. In case the proposed transfer is effected by one of the co-heirs in violation of the right conferred on his co-heirs by subsection (1) the latter cannot certainly be without a remedy because every legal right must necessarily carry with it a remedy for enforcing the same. The remedy of the non-alienating co-heirs, in such circumstances, will, in our opinion, be to seek the intervention of the Court to enable them to acquire the right which has been transferred away by the other co-heir in violation of subsection (1) of Section 22. In as much as the section does not provide any special procedure for seeking the said remedy, the ordinary procedure for enforcement of any civil right has to be resorted to by the co-heirs who wish to enforce their rights under Section 22(1); in other words the remedy is by way of a regular civil suit before the competent court. In as much as the section does not provide any special procedure for seeking the said remedy, the ordinary procedure for enforcement of any civil right has to be resorted to by the co-heirs who wish to enforce their rights under Section 22(1); in other words the remedy is by way of a regular civil suit before the competent court. Where the properties have been already alienated in favour of strangers there is all the more reason why there should be a full and fair adjudication of the entire matter in a suit tried before a competent civil Court because various factual questions are bound to arise for determination in such a suit wherein the principal issue would be whether the transfer complained of was effected in violation of subsection (1) of Section 22. The main purpose of such a suit instituted by the co-heir will necessarily be the enforcement of the right conferred by Section 22(1) of the Act. The question of invalidity of the transfer effected by the other co-heir in favour of strangers becomes relevant in such an action as an incidental matter which has necessarily to be gone into for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought by him against his co- heirs in enforcement of the right conferred by Section 22(1)." 20. The only remedy which was, thus, available to the appellant might be to file a suit…. … …” 8. Petitioner was not party to the suit. The judgment and decree sought to be executed by the Decree Holder is a judgment and decree between Decree Holder-respondent No.1 and Judgment Debtor-respondent No.2. Section 47 CPC confers power upon the Court to adjudicate and determine all the questions arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed, or their representatives deriving title from them, but relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Reading of bare provisions of Section 47 CPC, clearly contemplates that third party has no right to file Objection under Section 47 CPC. Therefore, remedy for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, if any, lies somewhere else. 9. I have gone through the impugned order and for the reasons assigned therein and discussion hereinabove, I find no merit in present petition and the same is dismissed. Needless to say that interim protection granted to the petitioner also stands vacated. 10. Therefore, remedy for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, if any, lies somewhere else. 9. I have gone through the impugned order and for the reasons assigned therein and discussion hereinabove, I find no merit in present petition and the same is dismissed. Needless to say that interim protection granted to the petitioner also stands vacated. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.