( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 22-8-1990 made in e. A. NO. 18 of 1990 in O. S. No. 50 of 1974 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, razole.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: While taking execution for delivery of possession of the petition schedule property, delivery warrant was issued and however the delivery could not be effected since there was some obstruction and application for taking steps had been filed and it was ordered that the property should be delivered on 17-4-1990 and on that day the delivery warrant was returned unexecuted stating that one K. Pullaiah and his family members had obstructed the delivery on the ground that they had purchased these properties by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14-5-1981 from the judgment debtors, the respondents 2 and 3 in the present revision. The third party objector who is the present revision petitioner also had filed a memo stating that he is not a party to the proceedings and by virtue of the sale deed he had acquired independent title to the property and hence notice should be ordered and the matter has to be proceeded with in accordance with order 21 Rules 97 to 101 C. P. C.

( 3 ) THE brief history of the case appears to be that an ex parte decree was passed in o. S. No, 85 of 1964 and the property was delivered to the decree holder and the order was set aside and the suit was renumbered as O. S. No. 50 of 1974. In the year 1983 or so the suit was dismissed for default and a restitution petition was filed in L. A. No. 135 of 1986 in O. S. No. 50 of 1974 and the same was allowed on 28-3-1989. The respondents 2 and 3 herein were directed to put the first respondent in possession of the property and when the delivery warrant was issued the present revision petitioner third party objector had filed the objection memo.

( 4 ) THE learned Principal District Munsif, razole after elaborately discussing the contentions advanced by both the parties ultimately had rejected a memo observing as follows:"the third party filed memo on 16-4-1990. Thereafter number of adjournments were granted to him. If we treated this memo as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 or rule 98 or Rule 99 or Rule 101 C. P. C. or the counter in the said petition the person who filed this memo has not even filed the alleged sale deed to show his bona fides. Ample opportunity was given to him. Nevertheless he preferred to submit his case on the strength of that memo only. Such a procedure is not contemplated under the C. P. C. If such memos are allowed to be filed and enquiry is conducted some other fellow may again file a similar memo and say that he purchased the property. There will be no end for this type of litigation. This third party simply filed a memo and says that he is a bona fide purchaser and no execution can be taken against him. People will lose confidence in administration of justice if this procedure is adhered to. Even though he filed a memo not less than 10 adjournments were given. He has not even filed the alleged sale deed as per his own memo, when he purchased the property the matter is still pending as per the suit records, the matter was finally disposed of on 24-8-1983. If we treat this memo as a petition counter no evidence is before this Court. The facts noted in AIR 1987 A. P. 206 are entirely different from the facts on hand. "aggrieved by the said order the third party objector had filed the present revision.

( 5 ) SRI Bhanoji Ramars, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner third party is a bona fide purchaser having independent right and title and when an objection is raised by such third party the Court is bound to follow the procedure under Order 21 Rules 97 to 101 c. P. C. and is bound to conduct an enquiry as contemplated by law. The learned counsel for the petitioner also had drawn my attention to Smt. Zahera Sayeed v. M. Shanmugam wherein at page 210 it