1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8746 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8747 OF 2009 Jayashree Suresh Pai and ors........ Petitioners versus Hajira Begum & ors.........Respondents. ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8748 OF 2009 Avinash Uttam Kadam ........ Petitioner versus Hajira Begum & ors.........Respondents. ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8749 OF 2009 Uttam Murari Kadam ........ Petitioner versus Hajira Begum & ors.........Respondents. Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar adv. for the Petitioners Mr. Neeta Karnik adv. for the Respondents. 1 to 3. CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 01st December, 2009. P. C.: 1. The present petitioners are obstructionists who have obstructed in execution of the decree by the respondents for 2 possession. The petitioners are the third parties. The petitioners moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC and the rejection of the said application has given rise to the filing of these petitions. A preliminary objection is raised by the respondent/decree holder that the writ petitions are not maintainable in as much as the order rejecting application is a decree and hence an appeal lies. This position, that order under Order 21 Rule 97 which goes to reject the application, would constitute a decree and an appeal would lie is undisputed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is not referable to Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC. According to the counsel for the petitioner, when the respondent/decree holder tried to execute the decree, they obstructed the execution and thereafter moved an application purportedly under Order 21 Rule 97. The application has been specifically filed under Order 21 Rule 97. It is thus obvious that the application was misconceived in as much as only decree holder can take recourse to Order 21 Rule 97 with a view to have the obstruction removed. Thus though the applications moved by the petitioner are misconceived the applications are referable to Order 21 Rule 97 and the trial court has rejected the said applications. 2. In that view of the matter, I have no iota of doubt that the order rejecting the applications under Order 21 Rule 97 constitute a decree and an appeal lies against the same for which there is a statutory remedy of appeal available to the present petitioners, hence these writ petitions cannot be entertained. Upholding the 3 objection raised by the respondent about maintainability of the writ petition, the writ petitions stand summarily dismissed. It is made clear that it shall be open for the petitioners to file appropriate appeals against the impugned orders. 3. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks sometime to approach appropriate court by filing an appeal and by moving an application for interim relief. In the result the petitioners are granted one week time during which period the decree for possession shall not be executed. Writ petitions are dismissed. (A. P. Deshpande, J.)