Short Note : 1. By this revision application, the applicant who is a decree-holder seeks the revision of an order passed under rule 58 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Code by the lower Court. 2. In execution of a decree, passed in favour of the applicant against non-applicant No.3, non-applicant Hiralal and the deceased non-applicant Ram Ratan now represented by his legal representatives submitted an application that the sewing machine which the decree-holder had got attached did not belong to the judgment-debtor as the same was purchased by them against cash payment. This application "as opposed by the decree-holder. The executing Court, therefore, asked both the parties to lead evidence in support or their respective contentions. At a later stage of this enquiry; the objection was heard without any evidence being recorded. As in the opinion or the executing Court the objection was supported by the cash memo produced by the objector the objection was allowed and the sewing machine was released from attachment by the impugned order. Held: From the record of the proceedings before the executing Court it is clear that a number of adjournments were granted to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective contentions. At a later stage, the case was fixed for argument and finally the impugned order was passed. 3. When a case was fixed for evidence of both the parties, the objections should not have been decided merely on the basis of affidavit and the document filed by the objector only. In these circumstances, it is desirable that the case should go back to the lower Court for giving opportunities to both the parties and then for deciding the objection raised by the objector. Revision allowed.