The main legal point established is that a person who is not a party to the decree can file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 raising objections regarding the execution of the decree, and the executing Court has the power to determine the right, title, and interest of the third party.

Prashant Kumar, J.

1. By the Court-This writ application has been filed against the order dated 24.1.2008 passed in Title Suit No. 259 of 2001 (Annexure-5) passed by Sub-Judge-IX, Ranchi whereby the learned Court below rejected the application filed by the defendant/petitioner and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is maintainable.

2. From perusal of impugned order, I find that the learned Court below had rejected the aforesaid application mainly on the ground that an application order Order XXI, Rule 97 is not maintainable on the behest of stranger. It was further held by learned Court below that if any stranger wants to establish his right, title and interest on the property for which a decree has already been passed he can file a suit. Accordingly, the Court below concluded that the suit is maintainable. The afore-said reason given by the learned Court below is on the teeth of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 3567 (2) and also AIR 2002 SC 3083.

3. In the aforesaid judgments, their Lordshjp held that any person who is not party to the decree can file an application under (brder XXI Rule 97 raising objections regarding the execution of decree. The executing Court has power under Order XXI Rule 1^1 to determine right, title and interest of the aforesaid third party. It is also held in the said judgments that for the same property, another suit for declaration of right, title and interest is not maintainable

4. Sri. Rohit Roy appearing for the respondents has admitted that an application under order XXI Rule 97 Le. Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2001 is pending in the executing Court with respect to the same property.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance and in view of law laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in aforesaid two judgments,- the impugned order cannot be sustained and it is held that the suit bearing Title Suit No. 259 of 2001 i$ not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, this application is allowed and Annexure-5 is hereby quashed.

7. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that I have not given any finding on the title of petitioner as well as of the respondents, thus this order will not prejudice either of the party in pursuing their case in the executing Court.

Application allowed.