JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code (in short C.P.C.) is preferred against the order dated 21.1.2003 whereby the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C. in Execution Petition No. 5/1986. 2. The facts in brief leading to this appeal are that the respondent-decree holder Mool Chand filed a civil suit (No. 109/1981) for specific performance of the contract dated 31.8.1980 for plot No. C-41, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur against Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain (now deceased). Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain contested the suit. After trial, the suit was decreed on 6.11.1982 in favour of Mool Chand for specific performance of the contract. The plaintiff was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 70,000/- in the court and thereafter the defendant Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was directed to get the sale deed registered in favour of Mool Chand and to hand over the possession of the suit property. Sh. Mool Chand deposited the said amount in the court on 27.11.1982. Civil First Appeal preferred by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain against the judgment and decree dated 6.11.1982 was dismissed with costs by this Court on 6.5.1985 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 63/1985 filed by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was also dismissed by this Court on 3.10.1985. Decree holder Sh. Mool Chand filed execution application in the court of learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and the same was registered as execution application No. 5/1986. Thereafter, Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain filed objections in execution case No. 5/1986 and the same were dismissed. Revision Petition No. 337/1986 filed by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain against the order dated 7.4.1986 dismissing the objections was also dismissed on 29.4.1986 by this Court. Thereafter, sale deed was got executed and registered by the Court in favour of Sh. Mool Chand and proceedings for delivery of possession of the said property continued. 3. Thereafter, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand filed a civil suit No. 221/196) claiming the said property. Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was also impleaded as a defendant in this civil suit. This suit was tiled on the basis of one earlier agreement for purchase of this property from Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain. This civil suit was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 23.10.1998. Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was also impleaded as a defendant in this civil suit. This suit was tiled on the basis of one earlier agreement for purchase of this property from Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain. This civil suit was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 23.10.1998. It is also stated here that in civil suit No. 221/1986, Sh. Mool Chand was restrained from further executing the decree dated 6.11.1982. Civil First Appeal No. 10/999 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand was also dismissed by this Court. However, this Court allowed them to file objections under Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code. Thereafter, objections were filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand on 2.9.2000 and on 17.2.2001, the Executing Court closed evidence of the objectors and Civil Revision No. 266/2001 preferred by the objectors against the order dated 17.2.2001 was allowed by this Court by granting last opportunity to the objectors to examine their witnesses on 24.3.2001 and to decide the objections by 23.4.2001. The objectors again failed to examine their witnesses and the Executing Court vide order dated 23.4.2001 dismissed the objections and this Court also dismissed Civil First (Execution) Appeal No. 2/2001 filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi vide order dated 30.6.2003 with costs of Rs. 3,000/-. 4. Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain filed further objections in the Executing Court and the same were dismissed on 15.10.2001 and Revision Petition filed by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.4.2002. 5. In this background, the present appellant filed objections under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in the Executing Court on 20.12.2001 with the averments that appellant-tenant is running a school since 1976 in rented premises No. A-29, Vidhalaya Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur. Since plot A-29 was not sufficient, the premises in question i.e. plot No. C-41 was taken on rent in April, 1976 from Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain and at present the monthly rent is Rs. 5,500/-. It was further stated that on 11.12.2001 Sale-Ameen of the court came to the premises for delivery of the possession of this plot to decree holder Sh. Mool Chand, Sale-Ameen was informed that the appellant as a tenant is running the school and thus possession court not be handed over to Mool Chand. 5,500/-. It was further stated that on 11.12.2001 Sale-Ameen of the court came to the premises for delivery of the possession of this plot to decree holder Sh. Mool Chand, Sale-Ameen was informed that the appellant as a tenant is running the school and thus possession court not be handed over to Mool Chand. It was further stated that the appellant-tenant had no knowledge of any such judgment and decree or execution proceedings prior to 11.12.2001. It was also pleaded that rent up to year 1979 was paid to Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain and thereafter Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain informed the appellant-tenant that now Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand are the owners of the said premises. Hence, the appellant-tenant started making the payment of the rent from 1980 and rent up to November, 2001 has already been paid to them. Thus, the appellant is occupying the said premises as a tenant and the appellant can be dispossessed only under a decree of eviction. 6. Reply to the said objections was filed by Sh. Mool Chand-decree holder. Remaining non-applicants Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand did not file any reply. As per reply of decree holder Sh. Mool Chand, the appellant-tenant has filed these objections in collusion with remaining non-applicants only with the purpose to deprive of the benefits of the decree passed in his favour in the year 1982. It was also averred that when the Executing Court ordered to get the possession of the suit premises, these objections have been filed and the facts relating to the tenancy of the appellant-tenant are not correct. It was also pleaded that neither Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain nor Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand ever disclosed this fact that the appellant-tenant is occupying the said premises as a tenant since April, 1976 and all of them having failed from time to time, these objections have been filed by the present appellant-tenant. 7. Learned Executing Court framed three issues as under : 1- vk;k fookfnr ifjlj vkifRrdrkZ ds ikl o"kZ 1976 ls fdjk;s ij gksus ds dkj.k fMdzhnkj vkifRrdrkZ ls ckdbZ dCtk ysus dk vf/kdkj ugh gS\ 2- vk;k fMdzhnkj dh fMdzh btjk; dh dk;Zokgh vkifRrdrkZ ds fo:) pykus ;ksX; ugha gS\ 3- vuqrks"kA The appellant tenant i.e. Central Academy examined five witnesses namely Mahendra Kumar, Bhagat Singh, Poonam Chhadha, T.N. Mishra and Ramavtar. Decree holder Sh. Decree holder Sh. Mool Chand apart from himself examined Arvind Kumar Gupta. The learned District Judge having heard submissions made by learned counsel for the parties dismissed the objections of the appellant-tenant. Hence, the present appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-tenant that proper opportunity was not allowed by the Executing Court to produce evidence. According to learned counsel, the District Judge himself has observed in para 24 at page 16 of the impugned order that to prove Ex. 1 rent note, Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain could have been the best witness but he was not examined by the appellant-tenant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application under Order 16 Rule 14 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was submitted on behalf of the appellant tenant to summon non-applicants Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand but the same was dismissed by the Executing Court and the objections were decided by impugned order during pendency of the revision against the order dated 13.11.2002. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed and the matter should be remitted to the learned Executing Court for deciding afresh after giving proper opportunity to the appellant-tenant to produce Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain. It was also contended that the learned District Judge did not consider the evidence produced by the appellant-tenant in a proper way as the appellant had produced sufficient evidence oral as well as documentary proving the fact of tenancy in the suit premises from April, 1976 and thus being tenant the appellant cannot be dispossessed without obtaining the decree of eviction against him. Per contra, learned counsel for the decree holder-respondent No. 1 contended that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to produce evidence and the appellant tenant closed evidence on 29.7.2002 and evidence of the decree holder was over on 27.8.2002 and thereafter, five adjournments were granted for hearing final submissions. On 25.10.2002 four applications, one by the appellant-tenant and three by other non-applicants (earlier objectors), were submitted and all the four applications were dismissed on 29.10.2002 and the case was again fixed for final submissions on 12.11.2002 and on that day, application under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. filed by the appellant-tenant was rightly dismissed on 13.11.2002. On 25.10.2002 four applications, one by the appellant-tenant and three by other non-applicants (earlier objectors), were submitted and all the four applications were dismissed on 29.10.2002 and the case was again fixed for final submissions on 12.11.2002 and on that day, application under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. filed by the appellant-tenant was rightly dismissed on 13.11.2002. Learned counsel further submitted that S.B. Civil Revision No. 1444/2002 filed by the appellant-tenant against the order dated 13.11.2002 stands dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.4.2003 with a direction that the appellant-tenant shall be at liberty to raise the grievance in the instant appeal. It was also submitted that suit for specific performance against Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain-respondent No. 2 (now deceased) was filed in March, 1981 and a contested decree for specific performance was passed in November, 1982 and since then, the decree holder respondent No. 1 is being deprived of the benefits of this decree and these objections by the appellant tenant were filed only with a view to delay the execution of this decree. He further submitted that a detailed inquiry is not required to decide the objections raised under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 C.P.C., although the learned Executing Court had conducted a detailed inquiry. Reliance is placed upon Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust and another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1754 . It was also contended that the learned District Judge having considered the entire oral as well as documentary evidence and after careful scrutiny had come to this conclusion that these objections carry no weight and there is no ground to interfere with the said conclusions. 9. I have considered the rival submissions, evidence available on the record and the impugned judgment dated 21.1.2003. A brief history as stated hereinabove, goes to show that on the basis of the written agreement dated 31.8.1980, civil suit No. 109/1981 was filed in March, 1981 for specific performance of this agreement and the defendant judgment debtor Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain contested this suit and thereafter decree for specific performance was passed on 6.11.1982. The judgment debtor first preferred first appeal in this Court and then he preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal and both were dismissed in the year 1985 by this Court. Sobhag Mal Jain contested this suit and thereafter decree for specific performance was passed on 6.11.1982. The judgment debtor first preferred first appeal in this Court and then he preferred D.B. Civil Special Appeal and both were dismissed in the year 1985 by this Court. On filing the execution petition by the decree holder, the judgment debtor then preferred objections in April, 1986 and on dismissal of the same, he filed revision petition in this Court and the same was also dismissed in April, 1986. In August, 1986 sale deed was got executed and registered through the court and when the decree holder applied the court for delivery of possession, then Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand filed Civil Suit No. 221/1986 on the ground that they are in possession of the suit premises. This suit was dismissed on 23.10.1998 i.e. after a period of more than 12 years of filing this suit and during this whole period the decree holder was restrained from taking possession of the premises. S.B. Civil First Appeal preferred by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand was also dismissed in August, 1999 and in the meantime the execution application was dismissed in default and the same was restored on 1.3.2000. Civil Revision against the order of restoration was also moved but the same was also dismissed by this Court on 1.6.2000. Again objections under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. were filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand in September, 2000 and the same were dismissed by the Executing Court and revision petition filed against that order was also dismissed by the High Court. On 15.10.2001 further objections filed by the judgment debtor Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain were again dismissed by the Executing Court and revision petition filed by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain was also dismissed by this Court on 10.4.2002. 10. In this backdrop of the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove, the present appellant-tenant filed objections on 20.12.2001 which were dismissed after a detailed inquiry by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. I have gone through the entire impugned judgment and find absolutely no infirmity or impropriety. No doubt, in para 24 at page 16 of the judgment the learned District Judge observed that the best evidence would have been given by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain but he was not examined. I have gone through the entire impugned judgment and find absolutely no infirmity or impropriety. No doubt, in para 24 at page 16 of the judgment the learned District Judge observed that the best evidence would have been given by Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain but he was not examined. But the said contention of learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable at all that the trial court did not provide sufficient opportunity to examine Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain and other non-applicants Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand. On perusal of the order sheets, it is revealed that issue were framed on 2.3.2002 and the first date of evidence of the appellant-tenant was fixed for 15.3.2002. Statement of Mahendra Kumar, first witness on behalf of appellant-tenant was commenced on 26.3.2002 and it could be completed on 2.7.2002. A.W.4 Sh. T.N. Mishra was examined on 15.7.2002 and the case was fixed for remaining evidence on 20.7.2002. On that day, the Executing Court declined to give any further adjournment for evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of decree holder on 29.7.2002. On that day, one application was moved on behalf of the appellant-tenant for examination of one witness and the Executing Court allowing this application examined A.W.5 Ramavtar and on that day learned counsel for the appellant-tenant closed the evidence and thus case was fixed for evidence of decree holder on 6.8.2002. After examination of decree holder and his witness Arvind Kumar Gupta, his evidence was over on 27.8.2002. The Executing Court, thereafter, granted five adjournments for final arguments and on 25.10.2002 four applications were moved and the same were dismissed on 29.10.2002 as stated hereinabove. Thereafter on 12.11.2002, the application under Order 16 Rule 14 C.P.C. was moved by the appellant-tenant with a prayer that non-applicants Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand should be summoned for evidence. The learned District Judge having heard learned counsel for the parties dismissed this application vide order dated 13.11.2002 with an observation that all these three non-applicants did not file any reply to the objections and they did not appear in evidence and sufficient opportunity was given to the objectors for evidence and therefore, there is no good ground to summon these three non-applicants. Revision petition filed against this order stands already dismissed although with the observation that the objector may raise his grievance in this appeal. Revision petition filed against this order stands already dismissed although with the observation that the objector may raise his grievance in this appeal. Learned counsel has raised the grievance, but in view of the discussion made hereinabove, the said grievance is found to be without merit and thus this contention is not acceptable that the learned District Judge did not give any sufficient opportunity to the appellant-tenant to produce evidence. The second contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant has also got no merit. The learned District Judge having discussed entire oral as well as documentary evidence in detail came to this conclusion that the appellant-tenant has failed to prove that he was inducted in the suit premises as a tenant in April, 1976. The important piece of evidence in this regard, according to appellant-tenant, is the rent note which is Ex. 1. The learned District Judge has rightly come to this conclusion that execution of rent note Ex. 1 is not proved. First witness to prove Ex. 1 is A.W.1 Mahendra Kumar who first stated in cross-examination that he does not remember as to who was the scribe of this document. His statement was deferred and when he was further cross-examination on next date he admitted this fact that Ex. 1 is in his hand writing. It is also significant to say here that this document is said to be executed on 1.5.1976 and the tenancy commenced from 1.4.1976 and according to the statement of A.W.1 Mahendra Kumar he is working in Central Academy School (the appellant) for last 3-4 years and prior to that he was carrying on business. His statement was recorded on 26.3.2002. Therefore, his statement was rightly disbelieved by the learned Executing Court. Next important witness with regard to Execution of Ex. 1 is A.W. 4 T.N. Mishra who was examined as Secretary of Central Academy (the appellant). The objections were also submitted by Sh. T.N. Mishra as Secretary. The learned District Judge has observed that his statement with regard to accommodation taken on rent in the plot No. C-41 is quite different from the accommodation taken on rent as mentioned in rent note Ex. 1 and in cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he does not know about the contents of rent note. As per contents of this rent-note, judgment debtor Sh. 1 and in cross-examination, he admitted this fact that he does not know about the contents of rent note. As per contents of this rent-note, judgment debtor Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain had made alternative arrangement for his residence and he let out this plot C-41 on monthly rent of Rs. 250/- from 1.4.1976 and received advance rent of Rs. 9,000/- for a period of three years vide Ex. 2 dated 1.4.1976. It is nowhere stated in Ex. 1 that only two rooms were let out to Central Academy while in his statement it was stated by Sh. T.N. Mishra that initially only two rooms in plot No. C-41 were taken on rent. It was also observed by learned District Judge that the original rent note normally remains in possession of the landlord while this rent note, according to statement of T.N. Mishra, was in this possession since very beginning. It was also observed by learned District Judge that neither Sh. Sobhag Mal Jain in his statement or in appeal preferred by him and even in objections submitted by him and nor Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Ramesh Chand in their statements and thereafter in their objections ever disclosed this fact that the suit premises have already been rented out since April, 1976 to Central Academy and thus the learned District Judge rightly disbelieved the case of appellant-tenant. It was also observed by learned District Judge that Ex. A.1 is admittedly prospectus of the appellant-tenant and various educational branches of the Central Academy find place in this prospectus but there is no mention of the school being run in the suit premises. It was also observed that no registers showing the activities of Central Academy School in the suit premises including the presence of the teachers have been produced, nor this school was ever got registered and thus the statement of A.W.3 Poonam Chhadha who stated that she was a teacher in the year 1977 in the school was not relied upon. On perusal of entire evidence available on the record, the learned District Judge rightly came to this conclusion that appellant tenant has miserably failed to prove that he was in the possession of the suit premises as tenant since April, 1976. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.Appeal dismissed. *******