A third party has no locus standi to intervene in an execution case and the scope of any investigation under Order 21, Rules 97, 99, and 101, C. P. C. is not called for.

SUSANTA CHATTERJI, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India at the instance of the third party interveners in execution case challenged the order/ judgment dated 16-12-1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Balasore in Civil Revision No. 43 of 1995. The said Civil Revision arose out of an order dated 10-5-1995 made by the learned Subordinate Judge, Balasore in Execution Case No. 19 of 1986

( 2 ) IT appears from the materials on record that the aforesaid Execution Case No. 19 of1986 is pending for effecting partition in a suit for partition being decreed finally. In the aforesaid execution case, the decree-holder has prayed for police help so that she can get delivery of possession of the allotted immovable properties. Meanwhile the third party-petitioners have appeared and filed petitions expressing their intention to resist the delivery of possession. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the Executing Court recorded that it cannot pass any order enforcing the writ of delivery of possession, muchless with police help. Attention of the Executing Court was drawn to a case reported in AIR 1974 Madhya Pradesh 26 (Bhagwat Narayan Dwivedi v. Kasturi ).

( 3 ) THE decree-holder being aggrieved by the said order preferred Civil Revision No. 43/95 as aforesaid before the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge having considered the contentions of both sides has allowed the revision directing, inter alia, that the writ of delivery of possession be enforced immediately.

( 4 ) THE third party-interveners thus being aggrieved have come to this Court challenging the order of the learned District Judge.

( 5 ) MR. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the present petition has submitted that the learned District Judge has committed material irregularity in exercising jurisdiction by allowing the civil revision. The concept of law as found by the learned District Judge is erroneous. In support of his contention, he has drawn the attention of the Court to a decision reported in AIR 1987 Andh Pra 206 (Smt. Zeharm Sayeed v. M. Shasmugra ). The learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has found: -"when the third party, not bound by the decree, approaches the Court to protect his independent right, title or interest before he is actually dispossessed from immovable property and files an application under Order 21, Rule 97, it must be treated to be an intimation to the Court as caveat to the decree-holder or purchaser or a person claiming through him and the Court is to treat it as a complaint or a counter in opposition as an application for the purpose of Order 21, Rule 97 and to adjudicate it under Rule 98 of Order 101 which shall be final and conclusive between the parties and it shall be treated to be a decree for the purpose of Rule 103 and it is subject to appeal and further subject to the result in the prior pending suit under Rule 104. "the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court differed with the view expressed in the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, reported in AIR 1980 Madh Pra 146 (FB ). The view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was dissented on the footing that the objection of the third party-interveners should be treated under Section 151, C. P. C. and the procedure envisaged in Order 21, Rules 98 and 101. C. P. C. is to be followed treating it to be a decree under Order 21, Rule 103, C. P. C.

( 6 ) MR. Mohanty has further drawn the inspiration from a recent decision of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1995 Cal 263 (Gopi Krishna Mali v. Judhistir Dey ). The single Bench of the High Court at Calcutta while considering the scope of prayer for police help by the decree-holder considered the ratio of the decision made in AIR 1980 Madh Pra 146 (FB) (Usha Jain v. Manmohan Bajaj) and several other earlier decisions of the High Court of Calcutta and found, inter alia, that the Civil Rules and Orders of t