All questions including the question as to the right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceeding under Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order 21 of C. P. C. must be determined by the executing Court and not by a separate suit.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 2-3-98 passed by Sri A. K. Dasgupta, Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Case No. 559 of 1992 whereby and whereunder the said Ld. Court dismissed application filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. .

( 2 ) THE first respondent filed a suit for ejectment of its tenant M/s. Krishna Textiles from the said premises which was an Office Room being No. II/4, on the first floor of premises No. 3 Church Lane Calcutta on the ground that the defendant had been a defaulter and also assigned possession of the said tenancy in favour of S. Pal and Bhramhaputra Fertilisers Distributors without the consent of the plaintiff. The schedule referred to in the plaint reads thus :-ON the North:by office Room No. II/3on the East:by over looking the Church Laneon the West:by common Corridoron the South:by Office Room No. II/5b. ""all that being one office room being No. II/4 on the First Floor of the Premises No. 2, Church Lane, Calcutta, butted and bounded as follows: -.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the defendant of the said suit filed a written statement it did not appear at the hearing and by a judgment dated 28-6-91 the said suit was decreed with costs. The said decree was put in execution which was numbered as Ejectment Execution Case No. 61/92. While delivery of possession was sought to be granted in the said proceeding, an obstruction was made by the appellant whereafter, the first respondent filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 559 of 1992. .

( 4 ) THE appellant filed an objection in the said proceeding alleging inter alia that the description of the premises in their occupation do not tally with the premises as described in the plaint. .

( 5 ) THE appellant N. K. Mukherjee in his affidavit-in-opposition inter alia stated that he was allotted one Office Room by one M/s. Vijoy Iron Pvt. Ltd. He has his own telephone as also furniture, law books and office equipments. However, in the said objection it was stated :-"that for sometimes M/s. Krishna Textiles claiming through M/s. Choomery Jute Press which was a lessee in respect of the premises No. 2, Church Lane, Calcutta-1 as alleged, realised rent from me but subsequently I challenged their authority to realise rent from me and stopped paying rent to said M/s. Krishna Textiles for which I was threatened with ouster from the said room. I have reason to believe that the said Krishna Textiles or the proprietor/partner thereof has caused to implicate me in the aforesaid Misc. Case for ousting me from the said room out of grudge and mala fide. There is no truth in the said application as alleged against me. Besides, the rent Krishna Textiles took other sums from me. M/s. Krishna Textiles had no right title and interest in the said room which I came to know subsequently and stopped paying rent as aforesaid. I crave leave of the ld. Court to produce the rent receipts issued by Krishna Textiles at the time of hearing. That on perusal of the rent receipts to me by or on behalf of M/s. Krishna Textiles it will appear that the room occupied by me bears no number. In fact there is no number against any of the rooms occupied by various occupiers including myself. The number of the room as appears from the schedule of the decree annexed to the said application is imaginary and non-existent. I further say and assert that the boundaries of my room do not tally with the boundaries of the room in the decree. The boundaries of my room are as follows :-NORTH :boundry wall of my room and thereafter New Buildingsouth :the room in occupation of Subir Paul;east :boundary wallof my room facing Church Lane;west :passage exclusive to my room. ".

( 6 ) SO far as the appellant Subir Paul is concerned admittedly he was a Sub-tenant of M/s. Krishna Textiles. He filed an application for addition of party in the suit but the same w