JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision by Smt. Geron wd/o Dhukaji of Bhinmal against the order of Munsiff, Bhinmal dated January 17, 1976, by which her application under Order 21, r. 100 was rejected. 2. The non-petitioner No. 1 Rikhabchand and non-petitioner No. 2 Sanwalchand are sons of the petitioner; Non-petitioner No. 1 Rikhabchand obtained a decree for ejectment against the non-petitioner No. 2 Sanwalchand in respect of the house in dispute on December 16, 1972 from the Court of Munsiff, Bhinmal. This decree was confirmed in appeal. In execution of the decree, Rikhabchand proceeded to take possession of the disputed house and came with an amin appointed by the Court on August 17, 1975. The petitioner resisted the delivery of possession. She submitted an application under Order 21, R., 97 C.P.C. on August 18, 1975 as she apprehended forcible dispossession but it was dismissed on the ground that she was not competent to make the application, as it is only the decree-holder who can move the Court under Order 21, R. 97 C.P.C. in case of resistance or obstruction in taking possession of the property, in respect of which the decree has been passed. Subsequently, the petitioner was dispossessed. Thereafter, she submitted an application on September 17, 1975 under Order, XXI, R. 100 C.P.C. complaining about her dispossession from the house in dispute. It was prayed that the possession, which has been forcibly and illegally taken from her, may be restored to her. Non-petitioner No. 1 filed his reply to the application on September 27, 1975. He contested the application on various grounds, and prayed that her application may be dismissed. Non-petitioner No. 2 also filed reply to the application on September 27, 1975. In his reply, it was stated that the house is dispute is in of the petitioner and nobody other than her has right, title or interest in it. On September 27, 1975, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed certain documents and learned counsel for the non-petitioner sought an adjournment for filing documents. On October 4, 1975, learned counsel for the non-petitioner filed certified copies of certain documents. On that day, the case was ordered to be posted for hearing on October 25, 1975. On October 25, 1975, the case was of the Court was fixed for arguments on December 13, 1975. On October 4, 1975, learned counsel for the non-petitioner filed certified copies of certain documents. On that day, the case was ordered to be posted for hearing on October 25, 1975. On October 25, 1975, the case was of the Court was fixed for arguments on December 13, 1975. The Presiding Officer of the Court was on leave on December 13, 1975 and the case was adjourned on January 9, 1975. Time was sought for arguments on January 9, 1976, it was adjourned to January 19, 1976. On January 17, 1976, affidavits of Bhavaji and Hajarimal, were submitted. Arguments were heard on that day. The learned Munsiff, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been residing in the house in dispute on her own account. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the petitioner's application on the same case. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. N.K. Daiya for Mr. S.C. Bhandari for the petitioner and Mr. H.C. Jain for the decree-holder non-petitioner No. 1. 4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Munsiff has exercised his jurisdiction with material irregularity in dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 21, R. 100 C.P.C. without holding any inquiry. The learned counsel submitted that the provisions of Order 21, R. 100 sub-rule (2) contemplates an investigation where any person other than the judgment-debtor complains of dispossession in execution of a decree, and since no such inquiry was held by the learned Munsiff, the order under revision should be set aside. 5. Order 19, Rule 2 C.P.C. provides that in regard to any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance of cross-examination of the deponent. 6. As stated above, on October 4, 1975, certified copies of certain documents were filed and the case was ordered to be fixed for hearing on October 25, 1975. On October 25, 1975, the case was posted for arguments on December 13, 1975. Thereafter, two dates were fixed by the executing Court. 6. As stated above, on October 4, 1975, certified copies of certain documents were filed and the case was ordered to be fixed for hearing on October 25, 1975. On October 25, 1975, the case was posted for arguments on December 13, 1975. Thereafter, two dates were fixed by the executing Court. At no point of time, on behalf of the petitioner it was intimated that she wanted to lead evidence in support of her petition under Order 21, R. 100 C.P.C. Even on January 17, 1976, it was not stated by her counsel that the petitioner wanted to produce evidence. Rather on that day, the affidavits of Bhavaji and Hazarimal were submitted and counsel for the parties addressed the Court. 7. In these circumstances, the learned Munsiff, in my opinion, has not committed any illegality or material irregularity when he proceeded to decide the application of the petitioner on the basis of the material that was on the record. An inquiry under Order 21, R. 100 is summary one.Order 21, Rule 101, C.P.C. reads as under : "R. 101. Questions to be determined : All questions (including question relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the adjunctions of the application, shall be determined by the Court dealing with application and not by a separate suit and for this purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide such questions".The petitioner was required to prove that she was in possession of the disputed house on her own account and not on behalf of the judgment-debtor. The learned Munsiff was not satisfied that the petitioner was in possession of the house in dispute on her own account and, therefore, he dismissed the application. This finding cannot be interfered with in the revision. 8. I may add that at the time when the petitioner's application under Order 21. R. 100 C.P.C. was dismissed, she had a remedy of suit to establish the right which she claimed to the present possession of the house in dispute as provided under Order 21, R. 103, as it stood then. 9. 8. I may add that at the time when the petitioner's application under Order 21. R. 100 C.P.C. was dismissed, she had a remedy of suit to establish the right which she claimed to the present possession of the house in dispute as provided under Order 21, R. 103, as it stood then. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for interference in this revision. The revision application, is therefore, dismissed with costs.Revision dismissed. *******