These three revisions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S No. 912 of 2008 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.R.P No. 4022 of 2013.

The petitioner filed the suit against respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for eviction from the suit schedule house at road No.12, Banjara Hills. It was pleaded that respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the tenants of the petitioner and though a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was issued to them, they did not vacate the premises. After contest by respondent Nos.2 to 4, the trial Court decreed the suit on 30-03-2011.

After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P No. 159 of 2012 for recovery of possession. In the said E.P, the 1st respondent filed E.A No. 115 of 2013 under Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC, with a prayer to dismiss the E.P. He pleaded that he has rights in the E.P schedule property and the decree obtained by the petitioner against respondent Nos.2 to 4 is collusive, in nature. An objection was raised by the petitioner to the filing of the said E.A. After considering the same, the executing Court passed an order dated 26-03-2013 directing that the claim petition be registered and notice be issued to the parties thereto. C.R.P No. 4022 of 2013 is filed against that order. In addition to that, C.R.P No. 4100 of 2013 is filed challenging the very numbering of E.A No. 115 of 2013.

Apart from raising objections at the threshold itself, the petitioner filed E.A No. 70 of 2014 under Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to reject E.A No. 115 of 2013. Through an elaborate order dated 12-02-2014, the executing Court dismissed the E.A. C.R.P No. 641 of 2014 is filed against that order.

Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basically petition under Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI can be filed only by a decree holder with a prayer to remove obstructions, if any, caused in the course of execution and that in the instant case, an application under that provision was filed by a third party i.e., the 1st respondent herein. He contends that assuming that even third parties can file applications under Rules 97 to 101 of Order XXI CPC, one of the fundamental requirements is that the person filing the application must be in possession of the property and that in the instant case, the 1st respondent is not in possession of the property. He contends that the executing Court ought not to have entertained E.A No. 115 of 2013 filed by the 1st respondent nor was expected to issue notice to the concerned parties.

Learned counsel further submits that at more places than one, the 1st respondent stated that he is not in possession of the property and that single fact is sufficient to reject I.A No. 115 of 2013. He contends that the 1st respondent filed independent suit, being, O.S No.2239 of 2103 in the Court of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against several persons in relation to this very property and the same was dismissed as withdrawn insofar as the petitioner is concerned. He submits that as of now, there is no basis for the 1st respondent to claim rights over the schedule property. As regards the numbering of E.A and overruling of objections, the same contentions were advanced.

Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that a claim petition under Rule 97 of Order XXI CPC can be filed not only by a decree holder but also a third party. He submits that the requirement that the claimant must be in possession of the property applies only when application is filed under

Rule 58 of Order XXI, but not when it is filed under Rules 97 and 99 of Order XXI CPC. He contends that those very questions would be adjudicated and determined in the course of enquiry, particularly, when the CPC mandates that a claim petition filed by third parties to an execution petition must be tried as an independent suit.

Reli