JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhatia, J. 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, E.C. Act Court no.4 Lucknow in Misc. Case No.257 of 2023 ( Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Hari Shankar Kushwaha ) whereby directions were issued for framing the issues under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. The petitioner is also sought the quashing of entire proceedings of Misc. Case No.257 of 2023 ( Jai Prakash Singh Vs. Hari Shankar Kushwaha ) under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC pending before the Additional District Judge, EC Act, Court no.4. A further prayer has been sought seeking direction for concluding the Execution Case No.23 of 2021 ( Hari Shankar Kushwaha vs. Jai Prakash Singh ). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the landlord, the petitioner herein, filed a SCC Suit for arrears of rent, eviction and damages against the tenant Jai Prakash Singh bearing SCC Suit No.26 of 2010. On 01.02.2011, Sri Jai Prakash Singh, the tenant, filed a written statement in which a ground was taken that he had lend a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the landlord and an agreement was also executed in between the parties being a notarized agreement. On 29.10.2013, the SCC Court dismissed the suit filed by the landlord against which a SCC Revision No.1 of 2014 was preferred and during the pendency of the revision, the court directed the verification of the signatures on the alleged agreement through an expert, in which it was revealed that the signatures on the alleged agreement were forged, as such, the SCC Revision No.1 of 2014 was allowed on 07.11.2016. The judgment of the SCC Court dated 29.10.2013 was set aside and the matter was remanded for deciding the suit expeditiously. Ultimately on 08.02.2021, the SCC Suit was decreed and a decree for eviction was passed, against which a SCC Revision No.5 of 2021 was filed and is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. It has been clarified by the High Court vide its order dated 02.09.2021 that there is no interim order pending and directions were also issued to the Executing Court to proceed for execution, which is said to be pending. 3. During the pendency of the execution, objections were initially filed under Section 47 of CPC by the tenant, the said are still said to be pending. 3. During the pendency of the execution, objections were initially filed under Section 47 of CPC by the tenant, the said are still said to be pending. In the said objection, prayer was to quash the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021 passed in SCC Suit No.26 of 2010. The tenant thereafter filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 of IPC. In the said application, which is on record as Annexure no.10, the entire history of the case was pleaded and a prayer was made for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2021 passed in SCC Suit No.26 of 2010. The petitioner filed objection and sought dismissal of the application which was registered as Misc. Case No.257 of 2023, however, no orders were passed on the said application and straightway an order came to be passed for framing of the issues under Order 21 Rule 101 CPC. 4. In the backdrop of the said facts, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner was a judgment debtor and had contested the entire suit, the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC at his instance was not maintainable and thus, the entire proceedings deserves to be quashed. 5. The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, strenuously argues on the strength of the Order 21 Rule 97 CPC that the application is maintainable at the instance of any party. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Brahmadeo Choudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and another (1997) 3 SCC 694 ; Smt. Ved Kumari through her LRs Dr. Vijay Agarwal vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through its Commissioner (2023) Live Law (SC) 712; Shreenath and another vs. Rajesh and others (1998) 4 SCC 543; Sameer Singh and another vs. Abdul Rab and others (2015) 1 SCC 379 ; Jini Dhanrajgir and another vs. Shibu Mathew and another (2023) SCC Online SC 643. The said judgments are being pressed to argue that it is not necessary that a person should be stranger to the suit for filing and continuing of an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 6. The counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, places strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (dead) through LRs and others vs. V. Rajamani and another etc. 6. The counsel for the landlord, on the other hand, places strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Periyammal (dead) through LRs and others vs. V. Rajamani and another etc. (2025) Legal Eagle SC 274. 7. Considering the argument raised at the bar and the judgment relied upon, the only question to be considered is whether the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is maintainable at the instance of a person who has been held to be a tenant and who contested the proceedings was a judgment debtor. The said issue was extensively considered in the case of Periyammal (dead) (supra). The Supreme Court recorded its analysis in paragraph (e) wherein the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 47 , Order 21 Rule 97, 98, 99, 100, 102 and 103 CPC. While interpreting the nature of the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, the Supreme Court considered the judgment in the cases of Brahmdeo Chaudhary (supra), Shreenath (supra), Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and another (1998) 3 SCC 723, NSS Narayan Sarma and others vs. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. and others (2002) 1 SCC 662 & Samir Singh and another vs. Abdul Rab (2015) 1 SCC 379 and ultimately held that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is available only to a stranger, who claims to be in possession of the properties in his rights which are independent and is a third person claiming right, title or interest in the property to seek restoration of the decretal property in contradiction to the powers under Order 21 Rule 35 which prescribes for removal of any person who is bound by the decree. 8. Considering and following the said judgments, the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance and are accepted. It is also to be noticed in the present case that the respondent tenant, having failed to establish any of his defenses as taken in reply to the SCC Suit, has tried one after the other tricks to avoid execution. The proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC were not maintainable at his instance and were nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as such, the Executing Court has erred in directing for framing of issues. 9. The proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC were not maintainable at his instance and were nothing but an abuse of the process of law, as such, the Executing Court has erred in directing for framing of issues. 9. Thus, the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the Executing Court as well as the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97, 98 and 101 CPC deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 10. The Executing Court is directed to execute the decree within a period of two months as held in the case of Periyammal (dead) (supra). The executing court shall proceed to ensure that the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property shall be handed over to the petitioner as a decree holder and if necessary, with the aid of the police. The said exercise shall be concluded within a period of two months from today. 11. The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.