1. The two points arising for decision in this revision filed by a third party challenging an order passed in execution in E.A. 344/1982 in E.P. 207/ 1982 in O.S. 408/1974 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to get herself impleaded in the execution proceedings are:

(1) Whether at the instance of a third party to the decree, resisting or obstructing the delivery, the decree-holder can be compelled to file an application under Order XXI R.97 C.P.C.

(2) Whether the application E.A. 344/1982 filed by the petitioner under S.151 C.P.C. is maintainable.

2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this revision as disclosed from the affidavit filed by the petitioner in the court below and the other records available can now be stated as Hereunder.

3. O.S. No. 408/1974 was a suit for partition and as per the decree in that suit the rights of deceased Kutta were said to have been set apart to the respondent herein and to Chinnan, the husband of the petitioner. It is alleged that Chinnan married the petitioner on 5-7-1982 as per a marriage udampady. Chinnan was in intimacy with the petitioner and as a result, she became pregnant, even before the marriage. According to the petitioner, after the marriage Chinnan took her to the house which is sought to be delivered in execution, and thereafter she has been residing in that house. On 13-7-1982 without notice to the petitioner, Chinnan revoked the marriage and sent a notice stating that the petitioner was staging sathyagraha on the verandah of the house in question. Chinnan also assigned his right in the house in favour of Chandran in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner. When the decree in O.S. 408/1974 was sought to be executed, the petitioner resisted the delivery. On the report of the Amin, police help was ordered. It was then that the petitioner filed an application to get herself impleaded in the execution petition, contending that the allegations made by Chinnan against her are incorrect and that she had filed O. S.230/1982 for a declaration that the assignment made by Chinnan in favour of Chandran was invalid.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 contended that the petitioner has absolutely no right whatsoever in the property or any locus standi to obstruct delivery, and that the petition is not maintainable.

5. The executing court after hearing both sides held that the petition filed under S.151 C. P. C. by the petitioner is not maintainable.

6. Strongly assailing this order, the learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner contended that the order of the court below is illegal; and that when delivery is obstructed the decree-holder is bound to move an application under 0.21 R.97 as in such circumstances this is one of the two remedies left open. The counsel submitted that the principles stated in Bhagwat v. Kasturi (AIR. 1974 M. P. 26) may kindly be accepted and the revision allowed. No other point was urged on behalf of the petitioner.

7. The learned Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2 with equal vehemence contended relying on the decisions in Jairaji v. Jagarnath Prasad (AIR 1976 All. 1) and in Abdul Rashid Khan v. Sk. Rahimtulla and others (AIR 1979 Orissa 175), that a stranger to the decree cannot compel the decree-holder to file an application under 0.21 R.97 C. P. C. and that the application filed by the petitioner under S.151 C. P. C. in the court below is not maintainable.

8. The relevant rules for consideration are R.35, 95 and 97 of 0.21 CPC. Order XXI R.35(1) states that where a decree is for delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. Under R.95, where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor or of some person on his behalf or of some person