Nooty. Ramamohana Rao, J.

1. This revision is preferred by the petitioner in E.A. SR. No. 2714 of 2014 in E.P. No. 63 of 2011 in O.S. No. 468 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge's Court, Anaparathy. The 1st respondent herein was the auction purchaser while the 2nd respondent was the decree holder and the 3rd respondent was the judgment debtor. The petitioner/claim petitioner is a stranger/third party, though the judgment debtor was his brother.

2. The E.P. No. 63 of 2011 is moved by the 2nd respondent/decree holder for executing the decree passed in O.S. No. 468 of 2008 and in that process immovable property of a total extent of 82 1/2 cents has been brought to sale by public auction on 09.12.2011. The 1st respondent emerged as the best bidder and his offer to purchase the schedule property for Rs. 2,25,000/- has been accepted by the Court and the sale was accordingly confirmed on 04.06.2012 by the Junior Civil Judge at Anaparthi. Thereafter the 1st respondent/auction purchaser moved E.A. No. 127 of 2012 under Rule 95 of Order XXI, CPC for delivery of the property purchased by him. Accordingly the immovable property has been delivered on 16.11.2013 and hence E.A. No. 127 of 2012 was closed on 26.11.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner herein moved an application on 23.01.2014 bearing E.A. SR. No. 2714 of 2014 in E.P. No. 63 of 2011 in O.S. No. 468 of 2008 for restoration of possession and redelivery of 38 cents of land lying in R.S. No. 348/1 of Kapavaram village out of 82 1/2 cents of land delivered to the auction purchaser. It is the claim of the petitioner herein that he is the absolute owner of land of an extent of 38 cents and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said land in his own right and the judgment debtor without having any manner of right has allowed the said land to be sold by public auction to satisfy the decree and hence dispossession of the petitioner herein from land of an extent of 38 cents is wrongful and hence he should be put back in possession of the said land. It is this application, which was dismissed by the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi by order dated 15.04.2014 on the ground that the E.P. itself was disposed of and the immovable property was also delivered to the auction purchaser and at this belated stage the petitioner cannot maintain the said application and at any rate he should have filed the application during the pendency of the main E.P. and hence the petition is not maintainable and it was directed to be returned to the petitioner. It is this order, which is challenged in this revision.

3. It should be noted that the petitioner being a third party to the Civil Suit O.S. No. 468 of 2008 as well as E.P. No. 63 of 2011 has filed the present application under Order XXI Rule 99 and 101 CPC as well as under Sections 47 and 151 CPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the 1st respondent/auction purchaser.

5. The auction purchaser has been delivered possession of agricultural land of a total extent of 82 1/2 cents which included 38 cents, claimed herein by the petitioner as owned and belonging to him in his own right, independent of the right of the 3rd respondent.

6. The question which is required to be considered by the Court is whether the application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with 101 CPC is maintainable or not.

7. Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC dealt with dispossession by decree-holder or by purchaser thereof. It clearly spells out that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession. Sub-rule 2 thereof makes it further clear that where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. It is,