The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of making an inquiry into the right, title, or interest of the parties before passing an order in execution proceedings.

( 1 ) THE present applicants apprehending their dispossession in execution of the decree passed in favour of respondent No. 1 submitted their objections before the executing Court inter alia submitting that the property in dispute was purchased by them much before the institution of the suit and as their vendor and they themselves were not joined as party in the suit, the decree passed in favour of the decree-holder was not executable against their interest. They prayed for an inquiry in accordance with the Order 21, Rules 98 and 101. The decree-holder opposed the application tooth and nail and submitted before the Court that as the present applicants/objectors had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit, therefore, and in view of the bar contained under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, the present petitioners/objectors have no rights in their favour, their application was worth rejection.

( 2 ) AFTER hearing the parties, under Order 18-7-2000, the learned executing Court rejected the objections holding that the property in dispute was purchased during the pendency of the suit, therefore, the objection submitted by the applicants were not worth consideration.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order, the objectors/applicants have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants submits that as the property was purchased by them much before the institution of the suit, therefore, and as their vendor and they themselves were not joined as parties to the suit, firstly the decree was not binding upon them and secondly without making any inquiry in relation to the right, title or interest of the present objectors, the decree could not be executed. It is also contended that the Court below was unjustified in observing that the property was purchased by the applicants during the pendency of the suit.

( 5 ) SHRI Nande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, was unable to contend before this Court that the property in dispute was purchased by the present applicants during the pendency of the suit. He fairly conceded that the property was purchased prior to 1982. He however submits that even if the provisions contained in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act are not applicable, then too the objections of the applicants were not maintainable because till date they were not dispossessed. He has also raised a preliminary objection that against the order passed on an application filed under Order, 21 Rule 97 or Rule 99, an appeal lies under Order 21, Rule 103, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable.

( 6 ) SHRI Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants, submits that as the application filed by the present applicants was not entertained and the rights of the parties were not adjudicated, therefore, the provisions of Rule 103 of Order 21 would not be applicable. He however submits that as the application was unceremoniously rejected and the Court has refused to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law, a revision petition under Section 115 CPC would be maintainable.

( 7 ) ORDER 21, Rule 103 CPC reads as under :"r. 103. Orders to be treated as decrees - Where any application has been adjudicated upon under Rule 98 or Rule 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. "a fair perusal of Rule 103 of Order 21 would show that where an application is adjudicated upon under Rule 98 or Rule 100 CPC, then the order passed on such application shall have the same force and shall be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if the order of adjudication was in fact a decree. The very first requirement for attraction of Rule 103 is that an application must have been adjudicated upon. Rule 98 reads as under :"r. 98. Orders after adjudication - (1) Upon the determination of the questions referred to