JUDGMENT 1. - The matter comes up for consideration of stay application. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition itself has been finally heard. 2. By the impugned order the learned court below has dismissed the petitioner's objection petition filed under O. 21 R. 97 C.P.C. by recording a finding to the effect that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his possession and that the objection petition is not based on correct facts. For arriving at this conclusion the learned Court below did take into account the rent note produced by the non-petitioner into the Court which purportedly bears the signature of the petitioner as a witness. In such circumstances the learned court below concluded that if the petitioner himself had been the tenant he would not have put his signature on the rent note as a witness. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question about petitioner's possession and its nature was a question of fact and was required to be adjudicated by the executing Court which adjudication is required framing of point for determination and giving opportunity to the petitioner rather parties to lead evidence. Since this has not been done the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error. 4. A perusal of the record of the learned court below shows that the objection petition was filed on 3.9.97. No affidavit or any document had been filed in support of this objection petition. Be that as it may, thereafter the case was fixed on 27.9.97 for filing reply. Then on 15.11.97 the decree holder filed reply to the objection petition supported by affidavit, the decree holder also filed certain documents to substantiate his reply. After receiving them, the case was fixed on 20.12.97 for arguments. It is significant to note that at that time no request was made on the side of the petitioner to lead any evidence whether oral or documentary. Not only this even thereafter the case was adjourned any number of times i.e. 29.2.97, 21.3.98, 4.4.98 and 11.5.98 and on all these dates time was sought only for arguments. It is significant to note that at that time no request was made on the side of the petitioner to lead any evidence whether oral or documentary. Not only this even thereafter the case was adjourned any number of times i.e. 29.2.97, 21.3.98, 4.4.98 and 11.5.98 and on all these dates time was sought only for arguments. Even to repeat it is pointed out that on neither of these dates of hearing any request was made on the side of the petitioner to the court whether to frame points for determination or for permitting the petitioner to lead evidence. Then on 16.7.98 the final arguments were advanced and the impugned order was passed on 22.7.98. In this view of the matter in my view it was not obligatory on the Court, in absence of any request on the side of the petitioner to offer an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence unless the Court itself felt it necessary. I gainfully rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Silver-line Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust & Anr., (1998) 3 SCC 723 wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has clearly held that the adjudication mentioned in Order 21 Rule 97(2) need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resister. Of course the court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination if the court deems it necessary (emphasis supplied). In this view of the matter I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. No other point arises. 6. The revision, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. The record of the learned court below be sent forthwith and the learned Executing Court is directed to expeditiously proceed with the execution proceedings.Revision dismissed. *******