1. The petitioner who was the decree-holder purchased properties in execution of the decree and was obstructed by the respondents. He obtained an order for delivery and an appeal against it was dismissed.

2. Being resisted by the respondents when attempting to take delivery he applies under Order XXI, rule 98, of the C.P.C. The District Judge has dismissed the application, holding that the said rule has no application. As regards the 7th defendant against whom no decree was passed and who was therefore not the judgment-debtor the order is right. But we are unable to uphold it as regards the 1st defendant and Kumara Gavundan who is alleged to have purchased the property subsequeut to the attachment and while the same was pending. The purchaser of the attached property is the representative of the judgment-debtor within the meaning of Section 47 of the New Code of Civil Procedure corresponding to Section 244 of the old Code. See Parama-nanda Das v. Mahabir Dossji I. L. R. (1896) M. 378; Lalji Mal v. Nandkishore I. L. R. (1896) A. 332; Gur Prasad v. Ram Lal I. L. R. (1898) A. 20; Mathewson v. Gobardham Tribedi I. L. R. (1900) C. 492. Under Rule 95 of Order XXI the Court is auth