ORDER : (V. Sivagnanam, J.) (Common Prayer : These civil revision petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned orders dated 08.01.2024 passed in E.A.Nos.140, 139, 141, 137 & 138 of 2014 in E.P.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore.) These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the impugned orders dated 08.01.2024 passed in E.A.Nos.140, 139, 141, 137 & 138 of 2014 in E.P.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the Learned I Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore. 2. The matters are listed today under the caption “for Maintainability”. 3. When the matters are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the property and they have produced sufficient evidence as they are the owners of the property and having title over the property before trial Court but the trial Court has not considered the same and passed the Judgment and decree. The first respondent/decree holder, in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S.No.2346 of 1984, filed E.P.No.118 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore, for delivery of possession. Under such circumstances, these revision petitioners filed the petitions in E.A.Nos.140, 139, 141, 137 & 138 of 2014 under Order 21 Rule 97(i) CPC & Section 151 CPC resisting the delivery of possession, which were dismissed, aggrieved against the same, these civil revision petitions (SR) have been filed before this Court, in which, the Registry raised an objection that against the decree, only an appeal would lie, hence, filing of the civil revision petitions are not maintainable. To support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment in the case of S.Vasanthi and another Vs. K.Munuswamy and another reported in (2021) 3 MWN (Civil) 98. 4. I have considered the legal position with regard to the issue, as to whether these civil revision petitions are maintainable or not, is no longer res-integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Rajeswari Vs. S.N.Kulasekaran and other reported in 2006 (3) CTC 171 (SC), held that the order passed under Order 21, Rule 97, must be treated as Decree, against which, only an appeal will lie and the order cannot be challenged under Section 115 of C.P.C. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Rajeswari Vs. S.N.Kulasekaran and other reported in 2006 (3) CTC 171 (SC), held that the order passed under Order 21, Rule 97, must be treated as Decree, against which, only an appeal will lie and the order cannot be challenged under Section 115 of C.P.C. 5. In view of the above observation, the objection raised by the Registry is sustained and as a sequel, these civil revision petitions are rejected at the SR stage itself. No costs.