( 1 ) BY this Civil Revision Application filed under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner, original judgment-creditor challenges the judgment and order passed by the Executing Court below Exh. 75 in Misc. Civil Application No. 799 of 1986 (Obstruction removal application) dated 1-11-1991 whereby the City Civil Judge stayed the hearing of Execution application No. 715 of 1986 and Obstruction removal application No. 799 of 1986 in purported exercise of powers under Sec. 10 of C. P. Code.

( 2 ) IN order to ascertain the compass of inquiry and exact nature-of proceedings and nature of challenges to the impugned order, it is, necessary to set out few relevant facts hereunder : (i) The petitioner, judgment-creditor, instituted Civil Suit No. 1154 of 1984 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, judgment-debtors, for possession of premises bearing Municipal Census no. 13-C-6-2 situated at Bhairavnath Road, Maninagar, inter alia, on the ground that respondent No. 1 a public trust and respondent No. 2 its managing Trustee were the licencees of the suit premises and that the licence was lawfully revoked and therefore they were liable to be evicted. (ii) Said suit of the petitioner was decreed by the learned city Civil Judge by judgment and decree, dated 17/10/1984. It may be stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared, filed written. statement and contested the suit and even applied for time to vacate the premises. (iii) The petitioner, thereafter, filed Execution Application No. 715 of 1986 in the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad and the Court issued warrant for possession. (iv) In this Execution Application, present respondent No. 3 resisted the execution and filed written objections on 16-10-1986. The holder of decree for possession was thus resisted or obstructed by third party in obtaining possession of the property. (v) Thereupon, the present petitioner filed an application under 0. 21 R. 97 being Obstruction Removal Application No. 799 of 1986 complaining to the Court about resistance or obstruction offered by third respondent. To such application the third respondent filed written statement at Exh. 15. It is required to be stated that when a decree-holder for possession is resisted or obstructed, under R. 97 (2) of 0. 21 the Court is required to adjudicate upon the claim put forth by the third party as well as entitlement of the decree-holder to remove the obstructions of the third party. In short, the Court is required to determine all questions arising between the parties to a proceedings under 0. 21 R. 97 of C. P. Code. The Court is required to determine all such questions including the questions relating to right, title or interest in the property, in this very application as if the proceeding is a separate suit. It is also required to be noted that any order which the Court would pass after adjudication is to be treated as a decree as provided under R. 103 of 0. 21 of C. P. Code. (vi) Consistent with the statutory requirement the City Civil Court treated the proceeding of Obstruction Removal Application No. 799 of 1986 as separate suit and proceeded to record evidence. Oral evidence of one maniial Narandas was recorded on 2-1-1989. (vii) It should also be noted that the present respondent No. 3 instituted H. R. P. Suit No. 4437 of 1984 against present petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad for declaration that he is the tenant of the suit premises claiming through respondent No. 1 and 2 and also for permanent injunction. He also applied for temporary injunction against the present petitioner restraining him from, in any way, interfering with the possession. It may be stated that application for temporary injunction was dismissed by learned Small Causes Judge, dated 13-2-1985 and appeal from order preferred before appellate bench of Small causes Court was also dismissed on 16-9-1986. Civil Revision Application no. 1343 of 1986