K. Kalyanasundaram, J.

1. These Revision Petitions arise out of the Orders passed by the II Additional Sub-Judge, Coimbatore in E.A. No. 198 of 2009 in E.P. No.179 of 2008. For the sake of convenience and for easy understanding, the Petitioner herein C. Murugan will be hereinafter as Decree-holder, the First Respondent Dr. Thilagavathy will be referred as 3rd Party Obstructor and the Second Respondent-K. Sekaran will be referred as Judgment-Debtor.

2. The Petitioner/Decree-holder instituted a Suit against K. Sekaran/Judgment-Debtor in O.S. No. 764 of 1993 for Specific Performance of the Sale Agreement dated 30.9.1991. The Suit was decreed ex parte on 6.1.2006. On the basis of the decree, a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the Decree-holder and thereupon he laid an Execution Petition E.P. No.179 of 2008 for delivery of possession. In the Execution Petition, 3rd Party Obstructor filed E.A. No. 198 of 2009 under Order 21, Rules 97 & 98 of C.P.C., r/w. 151, C.P.C., seeking adjudication of her right and title over the Petition mentioned property and record the resistance and obstructions of delivery of possession of the property in pursuance of the Decree passed in O.S. No. 764 of 1993.

3. The 3rd Party Obstructor has averred that the Judgment-Debtor-Mr. K. Sekaran became the owner of the property by the Sale Deed dated 25.9.1983. He borrowed money from one Mohan, since the amount was not paid, the said Mohan filed a Suit in O.S. No. 951 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore for recovery of the amount. The Suit was decreed on 28.7.1992 and on the basis of the Decree Execution proceedings in E.P. No. 207 of 2006 was initiated by Mohan against Sekaran to realise the Decree amount by way of attachment and sale of property. The Executing Court attached the property on 16.4.1998 and in the Auction Sale held on 18.6.2003, the said Mohan himself purchased the property. The learned District Munsif issued the sale certificate in favour of the said Mohan on 5.11.2003.

4. In E.A. No. 314 of 2004 the property was taken delivery by the said Mohan on 21.2.2005 and the Executing Court recorded the delivery on 17.3.2005 and terminated the Execution proceedings. It is further contended that the Decree-holder and the Judgment-Debtor colluding themselves created a Sale Agreement and instituted the Suit for Specific Performance, so the Decree obtained is a illegal and invalid. The Application was resisted by the Decree-holder by filing a detailed Counter stating that the Attachment Order made in E.P. No. 207 of 2006 in O.S. No. 915 of 1991 is void and unenforceable and the decree obtained in O.S. No. 915 of 1991 is a fraudulent one, and also it is also hit by the Doctrine of lis pendens.

5. The parties have not let in oral evidence, but marked Ex. P1 to P24 and Ex. R1 to R3. After considering the documents the learned District Judge allowed the Application in E.A. No. 198 of 2009 and consequently dismissed the Execution Petition. Question the orders these Revisions have been filed.

6. When the Revision Petition were taken up for hearing Mr. M.S. Krishnan learned Senior Counsel for the 3rd Party Obstructor submitted that these Revision Petitions are not maintainable as an Appeal remedy is available as per Rule 103 of Order 21, C.P.C. In view of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel, this Court heard the arguments of the Counsel on maintainability of the Revision Petitions.

7. Mr. R. Bharat Kumar learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Application filed by the 3rd Party Obstructor itself is not maintainable. Under Order 21, Rule 97 of C.P.C., an application could be filed only by the Decree-holder and if any person other than the Judgment-Debtor is removed from the Suit property, he can approach the Court under Order 21, Rule 99, C.P.C., complaining about such removal and to seek for adjudication of his rights. So the present Application filed by the 3rd Party Obstructor under Section 21, Rule 97, C.