( 1. ) THE facts giving rise to this revision are that in Civil Suit no. 6-A of 1965, decided by 2nd civil Judge, Class II, Khurai on 15th December, 1966, the petitioners obtained against Mahendra Kumar, the respondent no. 1 to this petition, a decree for possession of about 27 acres of lands situated in village Rathore of tahsil Khurai. The decree-holders made an application for execution of the decree on 13th April, 1967. A warrant for delivery of possession under Order 21, rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued on 8th May, 1967 but was returned unexecuted as the Bailiff, according to his report, was obstructed and resisted by certain persons in executing the warrant. The execution application was eventually dismissed on 4th May, 1968 Thereafter, two more execution applications were filed, which were also dismissed; the last of them was dismissed on 30th November, 1968. The record before me does not give any clear idea as to what happened in these execution applications. It, however, appears that the execution of warrant for delivery of possession was also resisted in the third execution case. The decree-holders then on 22nd April, 1969 filed the fourth execution application, which has given rise to this revision, in which they prayed for issue of warrant for delivery of possession. In a separate application filed on the same date the decree-holders requested for police help in execution of the warrant, on the ground that on previous two occasions the judgment-debtor had collected a number of persons to obstruct the delivery of possession. On 3rd May, 1969 the respondent No. 1 applied under section 151 of the Code, not as judgment-debtor but as Mohatmimkar of Shri Deo Hanumanji Trust, stating that the lands covered by the decree were not in possession of the judgment-debtor but were in possession of the temple and praying that no warrant for delivery of possession should be issued. This application was objected to by the decree-holders and was rejected on 8th May, 1969 on the ground that in view of specific provisions in Order 21, no such application was maintainable under section 151 of the Code On l0th May, 1969 the Court rejected the prayer of the decree-holders for police help on the view that it was not necessary at that stage. On that very date the Court ordered issue of notice of the execution application to the judgment-debtor presumably under Order 21, rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then on 20th June, 1969 the respondent No. 1 applied under Order 21, rule 36 on behalf of Shri Deo Hanumanji Temple alleging that the lands covered by the decree were not in possession of the judgment-debtor but they belonged to and were in possession of the Temple and praying that as there was no decree against the Temple, the decree-holders should not be delivered possession of the lands. In reply to this application, which was registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 26 of 1969, the decree-holders denied the allegations that the judgment-debtor was not in possession of the lands and that the lands belonged to and were in possession of the Temple. The decree-holders also took the plea that such an application on behalf of the Temple was not maintainable at that stage. The Court then framed a preliminary issue whether the application on behalf of the temple was maintainable. This preliminary issue was decided on 8th September, 1969 in favour of the Temple, the Court holding that the application was maintainable for determining the nature of possession to be given to the decree-holders. It is against this order that the decree-holders have come up in revision. The temple has been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the revision.

( 2. ) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a third party who claims to have independent title and possession which is not accepted by the decree-holders cannot object in execution-proceedings until he is dispossessed and for this reason the Court below ac