Honble SAXENA, J. – Heard. Perused the record of the lower Court. (2). Proceedings u/s 82-83, Cr.P.C. were initiated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar in Sessions Case No. 21/90 State of Rajasthan vs. Idayat Khan against the accused Kasam Khan and he was declared as an absconder. As per report of the SHO Police Station Ramgarh Sethan and the Halka Patwari, 1/5th share of accused Kasam Khan in the Guwadi (House) and agricultural holding bearing Khasra No. 116 and 257 measuring 53 bigha 5 biswas situated in village Rasalpur were ordered to be attached. The petitioner and his three brothers filed an objection petition u/s 84, Cr.P.C. alleging that the said `Guwadi (House) was exclusively owned and in possession of the petitioner and that the agricultural holding was in their joint tenancy, which was not partitioned. The objectors, therefore, prayed that the afore-mentioned immovable properties be not attached. On behalf of objectors, a photo copy of the registered sale deed dated 4/4/78 pertaining to the said house, Khatedari pass book and four affidavits were filed. The objectors were given sufficient opportunity but no witness was examined. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, dismissed their objection petition. (3). Shri B.L. Gupta has vehemently canvassed that the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the affidavits and documents filed by the objectors and also did not give any opportunity to examine their witnesses and to cross-examine the Patwari Halka. According to him, accused Kasam Khan has no interest and title in the disputed house, which exclusively belongs to the petitioner and thus, the lower court has committed an illegality in rejecting the petitioners objection petition. (4). On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner and other objectors but they did not adduce any evidence and as such, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. (5). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. A perusal of the record of the lower court reveals that the learned Sessions Judge has neither considered the affidavits submitted by the petitioner nor any opportunity was given to him to cross examine constable Ramlal, who had submitted his report Ex.P. 2 and the Patwari Halka, on his report Ex.P.3. (6). Section 84, Cr.P.C. provides a complete machinery for disposing claims and objections relating to such attachment. (6). Section 84, Cr.P.C. provides a complete machinery for disposing claims and objections relating to such attachment. It is a full scale enquiry where various objections were filed, the law enjoins upon the Magistrate to investigate it and to come to a decision. Objections u/s 84, Cr.P.C. are similar and akin to the objections filed under O. 21 R.58, C.P.C. Therefore, the Magistrate while considering such a claim/objection petition, should not dispose of the same lightly. On the other hand, he should grant the claimant sufficient opportunity to contest the proceedings. (7). In the case on hand, neither any reply to the objection petition was filed on behalf of the State nor any counter affidavit was filed in respect of the four affi- davits filed on behalf of the petitioner. Even the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine constable Ramlal. In such circumstances, it is apparent that the learned trial Judge has not conducted any enquiry as envisaged u/s 84, Cr.P.C. He also did not take into consideration the unrebutted affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order suffers from vice of non-exercise of jurisdiction vested in the trial Judge as also from material irregularity. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. (8). In the result, this revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 10.2.1995 is set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar with the direction to conduct de novo enquiry u/s 84, Cr.P.C., to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce his oral and documentary evidence, to permit him to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the State, if any, and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar on 12.12.1995. The record of the lower court be sent back immediately.