Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by one Ibrahim against an order of the Civil Judge Pali dated 12. 1. 59.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application are these. Gafoor, respondent No. 2 mortgaged a house situated at Pali with possession in favour of Phool Chand respondent No. 1 by means of a registered mortgage-deed dated 23. 1. 54. On the same date he executed a rent-note in favour of the mortgagee taking the mortgaged house on rent from him. THE rent fell in arrears and Phool Chand brought a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and for ejectment against Gafoor which was decreed. When the decree for ejectment was being executed Ibrahim filed an objection claiming to be in possession of the house as owner and praying that warrant for delivery of possession should not be issued without investigating his claim. This application was rejected by the executing court on 11. 9. 58 on the ground that it is not open to a third party to apply for investigation of his claim and that his claim could only be investigated upon an application by the decree-holder made under O. 21 R. 97. Warrant for delivery of possession was then issued. When the Ameen went to the spot to deliver possession to the decree holder he was resisted by Ibrahim. THE court thereupon passed on order on 1. 12. 58 that possession be delivered to the decree-holder by the use of force after taking the assistance of the police. When this order was passed Ibrahim was present and he filed another application for investigation of his claim. This application purported to be under sec. 151 C. P. C. read with O. 21 R. 97. This application was rejected on 12. 1. 59 by the learned Civil Judge on the same ground on which his earlier application was rejected by him on 11. 9. 58. Against this order the present revision application has been filed. So far as the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge on 11. 9. 58 and 12. 1. 59 are concerned no exception can be taken to them. Before an investigation is made under R. 97 O. 21 it is necessary that an application should be made to the court by the decree-holder or auction purchaser. No. investigation can be made on application of a third party which claims to be in possession. A third party is only entitled to apply for investigation of its claim after it has been dispossessed, provision for which has been made in R. 100 of O. 21. In this connection the following decisions may be referred to. Jagannath vs. Khaja Faisuddin (1), Nityananda vs. Pala Devi (2), Ouseph George vs. Varkey (3), Digambar Rao vs. Dhondu (4), and Premji vs. Mithabai (5 ). The order of the executing court which is not in accordance with law is contained in the order sheet dated 1. 12. 58 directing that possession be delivered to the decree-holder by the use of force. That order was only suspended by the executing court by its subsequent order of the same date. It has not yet been set aside. It revived when Ibrahim's application dated 1. 12. 58 was rejected on 12. 1. 59. If the Ameen reports that delivery of possession is obstructed by any one other than the judgment-debtor the court cannot pass an order directing delivery of possession by the use of force unless the decree-holder moves an application under R. 97 of O. 21 and a decision is given in his favour on his application after issuing notice to the person obstructing the delivery of possession. I accordingly allow the revision application as indicated above, and set aside the order of the Civil Judge contained in the order-sheet dated 1. 12. 58 directing delivery of possession over the house by force against Ibrahim. In circumstances of the case I direct that parties shall bear their own costs. Ibrahim is entitled to the refund of money which he deposited under the order dated 9. 2. 60 passed by this Court. .;