1. The main prayer in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows :

“To call for the records leading to order in E.A. No.202 of 2016 in E.P. No. 194 of 2015 in R.C.P No.155 of 2013 passed by the Principal Munsiff's Court-I, Kozhikode and set aside the same and allow the said application with cost throughout.”

2. Heard Smt.M.Shajna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.T.Madhavanunni, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is not a party in EP No.194/15 arising out of RCP No.155/2005 pending on the file of Rent Control Court/ Principal Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode. The respondents herein are the decree holders. The wife of the petitioner herein is the defendant/judgment debtor in the above proceedings. The Execution Petition was filed by the respondents herein/plaintiffs/decree holders praying for execution directing the Judgment Debtor to put the respondents in possession of the property which is the subject matter of the EP. The petitioner has filed the present EA No. 202/2016 in the above EP which has led to the impugned order dated 19.06.2017. It is the case of the petitioner the said Execution Application, EA No.202/2016 has been filed by him as obstruction petition as conceived from Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the premise that the property sought to be delivered is not liable to be delivered to the respondent since the petitioner herein is in possession of the same as per the sale agreement dated 02.05.1990 executed by the respondents herein/decree holders and that he is entitled to possess the same.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the trial court is bound to consider and adjudicate upon the said obstruction application as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is further stated that before the trial and evidence, on 09.06.2017 the Execution Court has dismissed the above EA No.202/2016 as per the impugned order dated 19.06.2017 without following the procedure established by law and without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence. The petitioner would contend that the Execution Court has not considered the nature and scope of the petition and wrongly concluded that it appears that the EA is actually filed under Section 47 of the CPC. The Execution Court has further held that in order to maintain the petition, the petitioner must be a party or representative of the party to the proceedings and on that premise the EA has been dismissed as per the impugned order. It is this order that is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition.

5. The impugned order dated 19.06.2017 rendered by the execution court on EA No.202/2016 in EP No.194/2015 in RCP No.155/2013 reads as follows :

“This is an application filed by a third party seeking a relief to declare that decree is unexecutable.

2. The gist of the case of petitioner is that the decree schedule property and other properties were agreed to sold to him as per an agreement dated: 02.05.1990 and possession was given by the owner of the property. His wife was a tenant in the decree schedule room. Now the decree holder attempted to evict him in the guise of evicting the tenant.

3. The decree holder filed counter and strongly objected the matter. It is contended that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings hence the petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that petitioner was examined as RW1 and on behalf of the respondent in the RCP. It is further contended that there is no bonafide in the petition.

4. I have gone through the records. It is seen that the petitioner is not a party in the proceedings. It appears from the petition that the same is filed under Section 47 of CPC. To maintain an application under Section 47 of CPC the petitioner must be the party or representative of them to the proceedings. In the present petition, the petitioner is neither a party nor is a represent