A person who is not a party to the order sought to be executed cannot file an objection petition under Rules 97 to 99 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

I.S.Tiwana, J.

1. This petition is directed against an order of the executing Court dated 14th March, 1990, whereby the said Court has standings launched by the petitioners on an objection petition filed by the respondent-firm.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in this petition, the following facts deserve to be taken notice of.

3. The petitioner obtained an order dated 25th of July, 1978 from the Court of Rent Controller, Moga, for the ejectment of Harbans Lal, respondent no, 2, alleged to be a tenant in the premises in question. This Harbans Lal, while denying his status as a tenant under Om Parkash, petitioner, raised a specific plea that in fact the firm M/S Durga Dass Harbans Lal, the present objector, was the tenant under Om Parkash. This plea of Harash Lal was negatived by the Rent Controller, and he in his personal capacity, was held to be a tenant under 0m, Parkash petitioner and thus his ejectment was ordered after considering the merits of the case. These findings of the Rent Controller were upheld upto this Court.

4. Before Om Parkash, petitioner, instituted the present execution proceedings on the basis of the above noted order of the Rent Controller, the objector firm, M/s Durga Dass Harbans Lal (respondent no. I in this petition) filed a civil suit seeking a declaration to the effect that the abovenoted order of the Rent Controller was not binding on it and was a nullity against it as it was not a party to those proceedings before the Rent Controller. The claim further was that this firm was in occupation of the premises in question in its own right and was a bona-fide tenant under Om Parkash. Alongwith the presentation of the plaint, an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) was also filed by the firm and an ex-parte interim injunction too was obtained. The petitioner after putting in appearance in that suit contested the grant of the temporary injunction and the trial Sub Judge, Shri J. S. Mander, vide his order dated 8th January, 1980 vacated the temporary injunction granted against Om Parkash. Against this order of the trial Court the objector firm filed an appeal in the Court of district Judge, Faridkot, but there too it failed on 18th February, 1980. The above-noted suit, however, is still pending in the trial Court.

5. On 2nd February, 1980, Om Parkash instituted the present execution proceedings against Harbans Lal to secure possession of the demised premises. During the course of those proceedings, the respondent firm filed an objection petition, primarily on the same plea as was raised in the above noted suit filed by it that it being not a party to the proceedings before the Rent Controller, the order passed against Harbans Lal on 25th July, 1978 was not binding on it and the Executing Court could not dispossess the objector in execution of that order. Om Parkash, petitioner, while denying the assertions of the objector-firm also raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the objection petition filed by it. The executing court after allowing the parties to produce documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and hearing them, has stayed the execution proceedings vide impugned order and has decided to try the objection petition as a suit by framing of issues and allowing the parties to lead their evidence in support of their respective pleas. This is how the court has concluded this aspect of the matter:

"As the firm M/S Durga Dass Harbans Lal is in possession of the demised premises the decree-holder cannot be allowed to get the possession from the applicant until and unless objection petition is decided. The following issues are, therefore, framed."

It is this order of the executing Court that is now under challenge in this petition.

6 The primary contention of Mr. N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though it is not clear under which provision of law to, th