JUDGMENT

G.D. Sahgal, J. - The applicant along with another obtained a decree for sale of a certain house property against opposite party No. 2. The property was put up for sale and the applicant-alone, among the degree-holders, purchased that property. After having purchased the property as auction purchaser he moved an application under 21 Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the judgment-debtor was in possession of the property through one Sri G.H. Jafri opposite party No. 1 who was to be removed from possession of that property. This application was moved on the 27th of May, 1966. On the 3rd of October, 1966, the court ordered that delivery of possession be made by putting the applicant in possession and a warrant for delivery of possession was issued for that purpose Before the warrant could be executed, however opposite party No. 1 G H Jafri came to court and moved an application before it praying that he being the tenant of the premises the order for actual delivery of possession be recalled and the applicant directed to apply for symbolic possession. An objection was filed by the applicant auction purchaser against this application of opposite party No. 1 and among other pleas in the objection, it was claimed that opposite party No. 1 bad no locus standi to present the application and that the court was not competent to decide the dispute at that stage. He also pleaded that the order of allotment in favour of opposite party No. 1 on the basis of which he claimed to be the tenant was not a valid order and that he was not the tenant of the house in suit and even if he was in occupation of the house with even the consent of the judgment-debtor it did not amount to a contract of tenancy. The learned Civil Judge decided that objection in favour of opposite party No. 1 and passed an order to the effect that the application of the auction purchaser for actual delivery of possession be dismissed and the warrant for possession be withdrawn. During the course of his judgment the learned civil Judge accepted the argument advanced on behalf of the applicant that this was no stage for opposite party No. 1 to file the objection but he went on to observe that once an objection is raised to the auction purchaser's right to take possession than it was the bounden duty of the court to investigate the said right, there being no specific provision of law under which the objection should be thrown out, It is in these circumstances that the applicant auction purchaser has come to this court in revision under section 115 of the civil Procedure code.

2. The only point that has been urged on behalf of the applicant is that the application of opposite party No. 1 before the learned Civil Judge was not maintainable at that stage and the learned Civil Judge acted without Jurisdiction in accepting and deciding the points raised therein. In order to appreciate this argument, certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have to be looked into.

3. Order 21 Rule 45 provides, "where the immovable property sold is in the occupancy of the Judgment debtor or of some person on his behalf or some person claiming under a title created by the Judgment debtor subsequently to the attachment of such property and a certificate in respect thereof has been granted under rule 94 the Court shall, on the application of the purchaser, order delivery to be made by putting such purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same."

4. In this case a certificate was granted to the applicant under rule 94. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to move an application under 21 Rule 95. In the application, that he moved, he stated that the judgment debtor vas in possession of the property through opposite party No. J. Under rule 95, the court could order delivery to be made by putting the purchaser or his nominee in possession if the