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 Rule 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 Rule could re-agitate the matter under Order Rule 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 Rule The court also noted that having failed to obstruct he could be considered a judgment debtor making Order Rule inapplicable The revision petition was dismissed