Short Note : 1. The facts relevant for the purposes of this revision are that a decree for eviction of non-applicant No. 1, the tenant, had been passed in favour of the applicant-plaintiff- landlord and the same had been ultimately affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 10.7.1978 in Civil Second Appeal No. 136/1974. The tenant non-applicant No. 1 thereafter applied for review of the judgment and the same was also dismissed. Thereafter, when the decree was put in execution, the tenant-non-applicant No. 1 requested the executing Court for time to bring stay order from the Supreme Court. Shri Mangal states that the Supreme Court had also dismissed the application for leave. Upto this date from the very beginning of the litigation right from the year 1968, no such claim was ever put forth as has now been put up by non-applicant No. 2 by moving an application under Order 21, Rule 97 CPC. In this application it has been contended that the judgment-debtor was not the tenant and he had never been in possession of the suit premises. The non-applicant No. 2 claims that he is the tenant for the last 8 or 9 years after having obtained the suit premises on an oral lease from the previous owner. According to him, not only the lease was oral but the payment of rent was also not evidenced by any written document. He contends that Chowdhury Rambabu who had let the suit premises to him about 8 or 9 years back had wrongly stated in the sale-deed while selling the suit premises to the plaintiff-decree-holder in the year 1971 that judgment-debtor Ramcharan was the tenant. It is a fact apparent on the face of the record that the present suit was instituted not by the present plaintiff who is the transferee but by the present plaintiff who is the transferee but by the original landlord himself against the judgment-debtor Ramcharan. In any case, since non-applicant No. 2 has now come up with an application and the executing Court has entertained the same and is holding an enquiry, it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits of the case put up by non-applicant No. 2 Radheshyam. Since an application has been moved it has to be enquired into. Since an application has been moved it has to be enquired into. But it has always to be borne in mind that the executing Court must be alert and cautious against the delaying tactics and devices adopted by the parties for any how protracting the trial of suits or proceedings for execution of decrees. However, if the case of the non-applicant No. 2 is genuine he may have his relief. but since the question of execution of the decree is also dependent on the disposal of the application moved by non-applicant No. 2, care should be taken that the parties do not misuse the provisions of law by making an attempt to delay the proceedings. The application of non-applicant No. 2 was already fixed for evidence on 26.9.1978. The executing Court had adjourned the enquiry for today. Shri Ramji Sharma states that the witnesses are not present today and summonses of some witness have not also been received back. 2. This Court directs that the parties i.e. non-applicant No. 2 Radheshyam and the applicant-decree-holder shall appear before the executing Court on 7.11.1978 and shall produce whatever evidence they wish to adduce in support of their respective cases. This adjournment is being granted at the risk of the parties and the parties will have no claim for seeking further adjournment. Meanwhile, the parties will be free to avail of the services of a special process-server on payment of necessary process fees for service of summons but in any case, the responsibility of keeping the witnesses present on the date fixed will be of the parties. Revision dismissed.