1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 and perused the record.

2. Present revision has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.5.2018 passed by the Special Judge (E.C.Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2016 (Haji Kunni Khan vs. Kapil Agrawal and anohter) arising out of SCC Execution Case No. 5 of 2015 (Kapil Agrawal vs. Arvind Singh).

3. By the impugned order, the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has been rejected by the Court below on the ground that till date no amin parwana has been issued and as such, there is no report regarding obstruction in delivery of possession and as such, the application filed by the present revisionist is not maintainable. It has been noticed that till date no amin report has come as yet.

4. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that a third party, who is in possession, is also entitled to move such application even before his dispossession and the law is clear on this issue and therefore, rejection of application filed by the revisionist under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC is illegal. He further submits that he is in possession as both the parties in the suit are in fact his tenants. He further sought to argue the case on merits by submitting that the decree passed by the SCC Court is based on void sale deed and decree was obtained by playing fraud. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered in the cases of S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., 1994 AIR (SC) 853, Babulal vs. Rajkumar and others, 1996 AIR (SC) 2050, Brahmdev Chaudhary vs. Rishkesh Prasad Jaiswal, 1997 AIR (SC) 856, Shrinath vs. Rajesh, 1998 AIR (SC) 1827, Ram Kumar Tiwari and others vs. Deena Nath and others, 2002 AIR Chhattisgarh 1, Ravindra Pal Kaur vs. Pandit Kedar Nath Prabhakar and others, 2014 (125) RD 722, Sameer Singh vs. Abdul Rab, 2015 AIR (SC) 591, Ram Kumar Tiwari and others vs. Deena Nath and others, 2002 AIR Chhattisgarh 1, Wahid vs. Mohd. Anwar, 2009 (3) ADJ 606.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1 has supported the impugned order and has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Silverling Forum Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust and others, (1998) 3 SCC 723 and judgment dated 2.4.2015 passed by this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 1192 of 2015 (Smt. Pooja Garg vs. Satya Prakash Goyal and 3 others).

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. On perusal of the application filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC the allegations appear to be that both the parties to the litigation who claimed themselves to be tenant and landlord, have been alleged to be the tenants of the applicant. However, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is not in possession over the property in dispute. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 can be invoked only by a person, even a third party, only when the applicant is in possession. Even as per allegations made in the application, it is clear that the petitioner is not in possession over the property in dispute. In paragraph 7 of the application filed by the revisionist, it has also been mentioned that when the revisionist came to know about filing of the case by Kapil Agrawal against Arvind Singh, he moved an application for impleadment, which was rejected and therefore, he did not get any opportunity of hearing and as such, it is clear that the petitioner was aware of the proceedings but he never come forward to challenge such rejection of his impleadment application or to initiate any separate proceedings.

8. I have gone through the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.

9. There is no quarrel about the law that the provisions of Order 21 Rule CPC can be invoked by a person even a third party, however, the