The decree-holder is entitled to institute a suit to establish his right to the present possession of the property if he is dispossessed by a person other than the judgment-debtor.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder against the order of the court below dated 22nd January, 1969, by which the court has allowed the objection of respondents 3 to 11 against of delivery of possession.

( 2 ) THE material facts of the case are that the decree-holder petitioner before me on 29th September, 1966 obtained a decree for possession of the land in dispute from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were judgment debtors. The decree-holder then made an application for execution of the decree and issuance of warrant of possession. In this application he mentioned that respondents 3 to 11 were holding the property on behalf of the judgment-debtors and were, therefore, bound by the decree for possession. The execution court issued notices to the said respondents, who raised objections that they were not holding possession on behalf of the judgment-debtors and so were not bound by the decree and were not liable to dispossession in execution of the decree. These objections of respondents 3 to 11 have prevailed with the court below and the execution application of the petitioner has been dismissed.

( 3 ) MR. Kohli, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the court below ought not to have entertained the objections of the objectors and it ought to have issued a warrant for delivery of possession and then on being apprised of the resistance by the objectors or complaint by the decree-holder ought to have initiated proceeding to decide the question of the objectors being bound by the decree. Mr. Kohli also submits that the findings of the court below that the objectors were in possession of the property prior to the institution of the suit and so were not bound by the decree are contrary to the weight of evidence on record and the provisions of law applicable to the case.

( 4 ) THE scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein referred to as the Code ) is that on an application for execution of the decree being filed, if the application is otherwise in order, a warrant for delivery of possession is ordinarily issued and if in execution of the decree somebody offers resistance to delivery of possession, then the decree-holder (or in an appropriate case the auction purchaser) is entitled to make an application to the court complaining of the resistance or obstruction under Rule 97 of Order 21 of the Code. The right of the objector is to resist the execution of the decree. This resistance need not be made necessarily by force, but may be made by assertion of his will in writing, as has been noticed in Bhagwat Narayan Dwivedi v. Kasturi, AIR 1974 M. P. 26. When the decree has been objected to, then the decree holder may complain of such resistance or obstruction, which has to be enquired into under, sub-rule (2) of Rule 97, or the court may otherwise have to consider whether the objector is bound by the decree. Under Rule 98, if the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction has been occasioned without any just cause by the judgment-debtor or by some other person at his instigation, the court enforces its warrant for delivery of possession and also commits the judgment debtor or any other person acting on his instigation to be detained in civil prison up to thirty days. On the other hand, if the court is satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was occasioned by any person (other than the judgment-debtor) claiming in the good faith to be in possession of the property on his own account or on account of some person other than the judgment-debtor, the court is required by Rule 99 to make an order dismissing the application of the decree-holder. These provisions of law do not strictly envisage a formal objection application by the objector to be filed in court, but usually and in practice it is normally done to bring the case of the objector to the notice of the court, so that the decree-holder does not indulge in abuse of the process o