As per case facts, the revision petitioner, M.M.Babu, was dispossessed from a property after an eviction order against original tenants was executed. He had previously obstructed the execution, leading to ... a successful application for removal of obstruction against him. Following his dispossession, he filed an application under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC, claiming to be a bonafide tenant, which was dismissed as not maintainable. He appealed this dismissal to the High Court, contending his right to maintain the application as a stranger to the original decree. The question arose whether a person who had an opportunity to obstruct execution under Order 21Rule 97 could re-agitate the matter under Order 21 Rule 99 after dispossession. Finally, the High Court held that since the petitioner's rights were already adjudicated in the prior obstruction proceedings, he cannot have a second opportunity to raise the same issues under Order 21 Rule 99. The court also noted that having failed to obstruct, he could be considered a judgment debtor, making Order 21 Rule 99 inapplicable. The revision petition was dismissed.