Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Petitioners are resisting the execution of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 221 of 1983 which has become final on the ground that their shops exist on the disputed land and since they were not party to the suit, the said shops cannot be demolished and they are not liable for eviction therefrom.

2. The objections of the petitioners to the execution of the decree preferred under Order 21 Rule 98 CPC were rejected as not maintainable and their appeal under Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC has also been dismissed.

3. The above two orders dated 24.5.2012 and 29.5.2012 have been impugned in this writ petition.

4. Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were heard and they had agreed for final disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit on record.

5. The basic submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Courts below are not justified in rejecting the objections of the petitioners as not maintainable. The petitioners cannot be evicted from their shops and it cannot be demolished pursuant to the decree. The decree is not binding upon them as they are not party to it and are not claiming any rights through the judgment debtors of the said decree.

6. The contention from the other side is that the decree has attained finality and has to be executed in the form it exits. The petitioners have failed to disclose the manner in which they have acquired rights over any part of the suit property. Their remedy, if any, lies in making application under Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC if at all they are dispossessed illegally in the execution proceedings and the objections on their behalf under Rule 97 of Order 21 are not maintainable.

7. In view of the rival submissions of the parties let me first examine as to whether petitioners are entitle to resist the decree by filing objections under Rule 97 of Order 21 CPC.

8. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has to be read in conjunction with Order 21 Rule 99 CPC. Rule 97 is actually a remedy available to the decree-holder to make a complaint to the executing Court, if execution of the decree is resisted or obstructed by any person in possession of the property. At the same time Rule 99 of Order 21 CPC stipulates that where any person other than judgment debtor is dispossessed from the immovable property by the decree-holder, he can apply to the Court complaining about such dispossession. The executing Court in both the cases is under obligation to determine the rights of the parties and the order is appellable as decree under Rule 103 of Order 21 CPC.

9. For the sake of convenience Rule 97 and 99 of order 21 CPC are reproduced herein below:

97. Resistance or obstruction to possession of immovable property.—

“(1) Where the holder of a decree for the possession of immovable property or the purchaser of any such property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed by any person obtaining possession of the property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction.

(2) Where any application is made under sub-rule (1), the Court shall proceed to execute upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.”

99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser.—

(1) Where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.

(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained.”

10. A plain reading of Rule 97 literally provides for a remedy available to the decree-ho