ORDER : N. Sathish Kumar, J. Challenge has been made by the tenant in the revision petitioner, wherein, leave was granted by this Court vide Order dated 29.11.2024. 2. O.S.No.4772 of 2021 was originally filed for partition and the suit was decreed allotting 2/5 th share in the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. In the suit, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that the 11 th defendant namely revision petitioner is a tenant and paying a monthly rent of Rs.8000/- and also paid an advance of Rs.1 lakh. The suit has been decreed and final order is passed. Now, it appears that Execution Petition has been filed to execute the final decree, wherein, an application has been taken out to record delivery under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC. It is to be noted that the the revision petitioner is not made as a party. By the impugned order, Execution Petition is allowed. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed by getting leave of this Court. 3. Since the plaintiff had admitted the relationship of the revision petitioner as a tenant and had filed EP without making the tenant as a party and the only question of law involved, notice to the respondents is dispensed with. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials placed on record. 5. It is well settled that when a party to suit is not made as a party in the execution petition, the order passed in the execution petition is not binding. As far as recording delivery, where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property is in the occupancy of tenant, he is not bound by the decree of partition, delivery shall be effected only by way of symbolic possession. The order of delivery has to be made by affixing a copy of warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree in regard to the property as per Order 21 Rule 36 of CPC. 6. The above provisions makes it very clear that physical delivery cannot be permitted particularly when the tenant's right has been been admitted by the plaintiff herself. 6. The above provisions makes it very clear that physical delivery cannot be permitted particularly when the tenant's right has been been admitted by the plaintiff herself. Therefore, while executing the final decree proceedings, as far as the portion in occupation of the tenant is concerned, Executing Court can record the symbolic possession and not physical possession. 7. With the above observations, this revision stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed.