ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th January 2018 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in C.R.P. (NPD)(MD) No. 1307 of 2008. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: 3.1. The respondent filed a suit being O.S.No.315 of 1986 against her husband, one Rajaram, praying for past maintenance of Rs.1,500/- and future maintenance of Rs.300/- per month, along with a charge over the suit property in case of failure to pay. 3.2. In the said suit, the respondent also filed I.A.No.823 of 1986 praying for an injunction restraining the defendant-Rajaram from alienating or encumbering the suit property. The injunction was granted on 24th October 1986. 3.3. The Trial Court, vide order dated 2nd January 1990, decreed the suit as prayed for and a charge was created over the suit property. 3.4. The defendant-Rajaram filed an appeal being A.S.No.21 of 1990, which was dismissed for default. 3.5. In 1994, the respondent filed an execution petition being E.P.No.80 of 1995, seeking to execute the decree by bringing the suit property to sale, since her husband had not paid the decretal amount. 3.6. It is relevant to note that the respondent’s husband, Rajaram, was one of the partners of M/s Sri Gomal Industries, which had availed a loan from Indian Bank, Trichy. On 1st July 1987, Rajaram had mortgaged the suit property as security for the said loan. 3.7. Upon default in repayment, the Bank filed a mortgage suit being O.S.No.444 of 1995 for recovery of Rs.11,49,363 & 75 paise with costs against the partnership firm. This suit was subsequently transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai (“DRT”). 3.8. One Subburam and one Jeyalaxmi, who were the brother and sister of Rajaram and also partners in the firm, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) being E.A.No.99 of 1996 in the aforesaid suit, seeking attachment of the suit property. 3.9. E.A.No.99 of 1996 was dismissed on 6th October 1999 on the finding that the property exclusively belonged to Rajaram and that M/s Sri Gomal Industries was not a registered firm. 3.10. On 18th August 2001, the DRT, Chennai passed a decree against the firm. 3.11. The Bank thereafter brought the suit property to court auction sale on 10th October 2002. 3.12. 3.10. On 18th August 2001, the DRT, Chennai passed a decree against the firm. 3.11. The Bank thereafter brought the suit property to court auction sale on 10th October 2002. 3.12. Since there were no other bidders, the respondent herself purchased the property at the auction sale on 25th October 2002 for Rs.41,000/-. 3.13. Unaware of this, the appellant purchased the same property at court auction for Rs.3,70,000/- on 2nd December 2002. The sale was confirmed by the DRT on 16th January 2003, and a possession certificate was issued in the appellant’s favour on 12th March 2003. 3.14. On 6th April 2003, the respondent filed E.A.No.144 of 2003 in E.P.No.80 of 1995 under Order 21 Rule 11 CPC, seeking delivery of possession of the suit property. 3.15. On 4th November 2003, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the appellant and registered before the concerned Sub-Registrar. 3.16. The appellant also obtained an approved building plan and had the patta mutated in her name on 21st April 2003. 3.17. Upon learning of the respondent’s purchase, the appellant filed E.A.No.33 of 2004 in E.A.No.144 of 2003 under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC, objecting to the delivery of possession to the respondent on the ground that the appellant was already in legal possession of the property pursuant to her purchase through the DRT. 3.18. The respondent filed E.A.No.423 of 2007, challenging the maintainability of E.A.No.33 of 2004. The Executing Court dismissed this challenge on 11th February 2008. 3.19. The respondent then preferred C.R.P.(NPD)(MD) No.1307 of 2008 before the High Court, contending that a third-party objector such as the appellant could not maintain an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 3.20. The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the respondent’s civil revision petition and held E.A.No.33 of 2004 filed by the appellant to be not maintainable. It further directed the Executing Court to dispose of E.A.No.144 of 2003 and E.P.No.80 of 1995 within fifteen days and directed that possession of the property be delivered to the respondent immediately, taking note of the nearly 22 years of pendency. 3.21. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for both parties. 5. 3.21. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court. 4. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for both parties. 5. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is a bonafide purchaser of the property in question, whose purchase was confirmed by the DRT, and that her application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was maintainable as a matter of right. It was urged that the High Court could not have directed delivery of possession without first adjudicating the appellant’s competing claim. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent’s husband had fraudulently mortgaged the property despite the subsisting injunction in her maintenance suit, and that the respondent, being the prior auction purchaser, was entitled to possession. It was further urged that a third-party stranger to the suit could not invoke Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to obstruct execution. 7. The High Court observed that Rajaram, the respondent's husband, along with his family members, had mortgaged the property despite being aware of the pendency of O.S. No.315 of 1986 filed by the respondent seeking maintenance and the interim injunction operating in her favour. The High Court was also conscious of the hardship suffered by the respondent, whose claim for maintenance has remained pending since 1986. While we are not unmindful of the respondent's plight, we are unable to sustain the view taken by the High Court that E.A. No.33 of 2004 filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC was not maintainable. The appellant's claim could not have been rejected without being considered on its merits. 8. Order 21 Rule 97 CPC expressly provides that where a decree-holder or a purchaser of immovable property sold in execution of a decree is resisted or obstructed in obtaining possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such resistance or obstruction. The appellant’s claim is through a sale conducted pursuant to proceedings before the DRT and she is an auction purchaser of the property in question. She therefore had every right to invoke Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and place her objections before the Executing Court. 9. More importantly, sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 mandates that where such an application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon it. She therefore had every right to invoke Order 21 Rule 97 CPC and place her objections before the Executing Court. 9. More importantly, sub-rule (2) of Rule 97 mandates that where such an application is made, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon it. The statutory scheme thus contemplates an inquiry into the rival claims of the parties and not a summary rejection of the application at the threshold. The question before the Court was not whether the appellant's claim would ultimately succeed, but whether it was entitled to be adjudicated. In our view, it clearly was. 10. The appellant's purchase was confirmed by the DRT. A sale certificate was issued and registered in her favour, the patta was transferred in her name, and she also obtained building approval and incurred expenditure towards the property. Whatever wrongdoing may have been committed by Rajaram and his family cannot, without adjudication, be attributed to the appellant. 11. The Executing Court, by its order dated 11th February 2008, rightly held that the issue of delivery of possession involves mixed questions of law and fact and therefore cannot be decided as a preliminary issue. We find no error in that view. The Executing Court was justified in rejecting the respondent's objection to the maintainability of E.A. No.33 of 2004 and directing that the matter proceeds for adjudication. 12. More than two decades have elapsed since the auction sales giving rise to the present dispute. In the interests of justice, it is necessary that the rights of the parties be finally determined on their merits rather than on a technical objection as to maintainability. 13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. 14. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th January 2018 passed by the High Court is set aside and the order of the Executing Court dated 11th February 2008 is restored. E.A. No.33 of 2004 filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC shall be taken up and decided on its own merits. 15. We direct the Executing Court to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously. It goes without saying that both the parties shall extend all cooperation in the early disposal of the executing proceedings 16. Pending applications, if any, to be disposed of.