Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Objector petitioner has filed instant revision petition against order dated 11.08.2004 whereby ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City upheld order dated 05/08/2003 passed by Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jaipur City (Executing Court) rejecting objection petition No. 3/03 filed under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC in Application No. 16/02 for execution of Judgment & decree dated 310.2001. 2. Facts, in brief , essential for adjudication of dispute arising out of Suit No. 179/99, are that objector petitioner and decree holder (Respondent No. 1) are sons of Shri Lal Chand Rajoria (Respondent No. 2). Girish Kumar (decree holder), Rambabu and petitioner are real brothers, who have one sister but she died leaving behind her one daughter (Kumari Meena), who is grand-daughter of Respondent No. 2. On 15/10/1995 an oral family settlement was arrived at between Respondent No. 2 and his three sons (petitioner, decree holder and Rambabu; and this settlement was ascribed on 112.1995 in written document on stamp paper of Rs. 10/-which bears signature of three sons including petitioner, decree holder and Rambabu and their signatures were not disputed by either of parties and that apart, it was also not disputed that suit property was part of property which was taken note of in family settlement executed on 112.1995. 3. In the year 1999, respondent decree holder filed suit for eviction and arrears of rent before Additional Civil Judge (JD) No. 1, Jaipur City, in respect of suit property, for which he claimed himself to be owner. Suit property consisted of two tin-sheds on plot situated at Delhi Bye Pass Road, Jaipur. However, in suit, decree holder did not implead petitioner as party respondent and while claiming himself to be owner of suit property, in the plaint it was averred that suit property was given on rent to his father for business purpose and his father closed his business and sub-let property to Respondents No. 3 and 4. In written statement, Respondent No. 2 (father of petitioner and of decree holder) denied claim of decree holder in Paras 5, 7 and special pleas as under:-" After filing written statements, Respondent Nos. In written statement, Respondent No. 2 (father of petitioner and of decree holder) denied claim of decree holder in Paras 5, 7 and special pleas as under:-" After filing written statements, Respondent Nos. 2, 3, and 4 failed to appear before trial Court and neither they cross examined plaintiff s witnesses nor got themselves examined nor produced any material to substantiate their defence claimed in written statement; hence trial Court ordered to proceed ex parte vide order dated 03.05.2000 and ultimately passed ex parte decree vide Judgment dated 310.2001 - operative part whereof is reproduced as follows:- Decree holder filed an Application No. 16/02 for execution of aforesaid decree, whereon orders were passed for issuing warrant of delivery of possession and for taking police help, at this stage petitioner came to know of having Judgment & decree passed against him in his absence, hence he moved an objection petition under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, stating inter-alia that objector is real owner of suit property by virtue of family settlement and has been receiving rent in lawful manner but decree holder knowing fully well that suit property had come in his possession after family settlement, intentionally failed to imposed him (petitioner) as party to the suit; as such Judgment and decree dated 310.2001 be declared null and void after holding inquiry under Order 21 Rule 101, CPC. 4. Decree holder submitted reply to objection petition and disputed family settlement dated 112.1995. But, no inquiry was held with regard to the document placed on record and despite the fact that it was referred to by Respondent No. 2 (father of decree holder) who was one of defendants, in his written statement in which reference has been made of family settlement, which was signed by all the three brothers and their father and as per which suit property came in share of petitioner. After taking note of material on record, learned trial Court dismissed objection petition of petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2003 - against which petitioner preferred appeal but that was also dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2004 basically on the premise that petitioner is in possession of suit property and has failed to produce rent receipts, if any, received from Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Hence this petition. 5. 3 and 4. Hence this petition. 5. Counsel for petitioner contends that objection raised by him has erroneously been rejected without framing issue and permitting party to lead evidence despite the fact that family settlement dated 112.1995 was placed on record to substantiate his claim that suit property by virtue of settlement has come to his share and that apart, he was stranger to procedure adopted by trial Court while passing Judgment & decree in question and knowing it fully well, decree holder has intentionally failed to implead him as party to the suit and by this method, if possession of suit property is handed over to the decree holder that will cause great prejudice to him and in such circumstances, executing Court has failed to conduct inquiry permitting him to lead evidence and erroneously decided objection de hors the procedure provided under Order 21 Rules 100 and 101, CPC. 6. Counsel further submits that learned executing Court recorded finding merely on assertions which has resulted in material irregularity and such finding without permitting objector to strengthen his claim by leading evidence in support of family settlement duly signed by family members including decree holder, signatures whereof have not been disputed by either of parties thereto; in such circumstances, executing Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested in it and conclusion arrived at are not sustainable in law. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust, 1998 (3) SCC 723 ; and of this Court in Ramkishore vs. Mannaver Begum, 1997 (1) WLC 271, and Sri Vaishnav Brahmin Trust Jodhpur vs. Ramesh Chandra, 2000 (4) WLC 581 (Raj.). 7. Per contra, Counsel for respondents supported finding recorded by Courts below under impugned orders and submits that these concurrent findings of fact ordinarily have not to be disturbed unless it is perverse causing material irregularity. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 . Per contra, Counsel for respondents supported finding recorded by Courts below under impugned orders and submits that these concurrent findings of fact ordinarily have not to be disturbed unless it is perverse causing material irregularity. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics vs. Ajit Prasad, AIR 1973 SC 76 . Counsel further submits that even under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, the Court has limited scope to interfere and merely because objection has been raised, that will not construe that in all cases, a regular trial should take place and the party be permitted to lead evidence and it is only for the Court to decide in instant matter as to whether dispute raised by objector can be settled by change of facts or is required to frame issue or call upon parties to lead evidence or can be settled by filing affidavits but in instant case, Court below after taking note of material has not considered it proper to call upon parties to submit affidavit or in holding investigation by way of framing issues and once finding recorded is duly supported by material and when not considered by Court to try by framing of issues, it cannot be said that the Court committed error of law while passing ordered impugned. 8. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Order 21 Rule 97, CPC specifically provides that when decree is resisted or obstructed by any person for obtaining possession of decreetal property, such decree holder has to make application and complain of obstruction or resistance and if such an application is made, according to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 97, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon application in accordance with provisions contained therein. 9. Third party to the decree who offers resistance would certainly fall within ambit of Rule 101 if adjudication is warranted as a consequence of the resistance or obstruction made by him to execution of the decree. In instant case, resistance has been made by person claiming owner of suit property in view of family settlement arrived at between family members on 112.1995. In instant case, resistance has been made by person claiming owner of suit property in view of family settlement arrived at between family members on 112.1995. Scope of adjudication would certainly fall within ambit of Rule 101 to adjudicate question as to whether objector has any interest in suit property in view of family settlement duly signed by parties including decree holder and petitioner also. In that Court, executing Court has to decide as to whether objector (petitioner) has right to resist in totality of facts of instant case and while making adjudication, it was under obligation to determine such questions as may arise among parties to the proceedings as it is relevant to adjudicate upon complaint. In Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust (Supra), Apex Court considered Scope of order 21 Rule 97, CPC- “14. It is clear that the executing Court can decide whether the resister or obstructor is a person bound by the decree and he refuses to vacate the property. That question also squarely falls within adjudicatory process contemplated in Order 21 Rule 97(2) of the Code. The adjudication mentioned therein need not necessarily involve a detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The Court can make the adjudication on admitted fats 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.” In Brahmdeo Choudhary vs. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, 1997 (3) SCC 694 , Apex Court observed as follows:-“It is pertinent to note that the resistance and/or obstruction to possession of immovable property as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 97 CPC could have been offered by any person. The words, “any person” is enough to include apart from Judgment debtor or anyone claiming through him even persons claiming independently and who would, therefore, be total strangers to the decree. … Consequently, it must be held that respondent 1s application dated 06.05.1991 though seeking only re-issuance of warrant for delivery of possession with aid of armed force in substance sought to bypass the previous resistance and obstruction offered by the appellant on the post. Thus it was squarely covered by the sweep of Order 21 Rule 97, Sub-rule (1) CPC. Once that happened the procedure laid down by Sub-rule (2) thereof has to be followed by the executing Court. Thus it was squarely covered by the sweep of Order 21 Rule 97, Sub-rule (1) CPC. Once that happened the procedure laid down by Sub-rule (2) thereof has to be followed by the executing Court. The Court had to proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the subsequent to provisions contained in the said order.” Admittedly, in instant case, Raj Bahadur (objector) was not party to the suit under impugned decree and before executing Court, he moved application-raising objection that he being owner of decreetal property having come to his share in view of family settlement dated 112.1995, the decree could not have been executed against him and signatures on family settlement were not disputed and only objection raised by decree holder was that what was orally observed on the date of family settlement dated 110.1995 and ascribed in document executed on stamp paper there was interpolation that could have been examined only after holding regular inquiry by executing Court which in instant case both the Courts below have failed to do so. Determination of right, title and interest of the objector needs to be adjudicated under Order 21 Rule 101/103, CPC, which is a complete Code in itself . Rule 101, CPC provides that all questions including about right, title or interest in suit property arising between the parties to a proceeding on application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC as the case may be and relevant to adjudication of application and not by separate suit and for that purpose, Court shall notwithstanding anything contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed to have jurisdiction to decide questions. 10. This Court in Sri Vaishnanva Brahmin Trust Jodhpur vs. Ramesh Chandra (Supra), observed as follows:-“21. … According to Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, wherever holder of a decree for possession for immovable property or purchaser of any such property is resisted or obstructed by any person in possession of the property he may make an application complaining of such resistance. … Under Rule 98 and Rule 100, upon determination of the question referred to in Rule 101, the Court has to make order as contemplated therein. … Under Rule 98 and Rule 100, upon determination of the question referred to in Rule 101, the Court has to make order as contemplated therein. Rule 105 provides procedure for hearing of the application, according to which, the Court before which the application under any of the foregoing rules of this order is pending, may fix a day for the hearing of the application, on which date or on any adjourned date, if the applicant does not appear when the case is called on for hearing it may dismiss the application. Likewise if the opposite party does not appear Court may hear the application ex parte and pass such order as it thinks fit. Of course, according to Rule 103, the order made consequent upon adjudication under Rule 98 or Rule 100, is to have the same force and is subject to the same condition as to appeal or otherwise as if it were for a decree.” “22. This expression in Rule 103, enacts a fiction thereby making the orders to be having the same force and subject to the same conditions as to the appeal or otherwise, as if for decree, but then it never means that procedure for adjudication of the objection is to be that of a regular suit which culminates into decree. This expression in Rule 103, enacts a fiction thereby making the orders to be having the same force and subject to the same conditions as to the appeal or otherwise, as if for decree, but then it never means that procedure for adjudication of the objection is to be that of a regular suit which culminates into decree. In my view, even on the basis of language of Rule 103, the adjudication of objection under Order 21 Rule 97 is not required to be made by adopting the procedure as if it was a civil suit culminating into decree, the objections can be and should be determined on the basis of affidavits filed by the respective parties and documents that may be submitted.” In instant case, learned executing Court has proceeded only on premise that objector being not in possession of suit property, his rights cannot be prejudice under the decree and he is always free to take appropriate proceedings in independent suit and first appellate Court has also proceeded on premise that since father of petitioner Lal Chand (Respondent No. 2) has failed to produce his defence and so also with regard to family settlement - reference of which has been made in written statement - in absence whereof , this could not have been noticed while passing the decree in the suit of the decree holder and even on examining family settlement, without providing opportunity to either side to proceedings, has recorded finding about discrepancy in oral family settlement dated 110.1995 and as ascribed by way of execution on stamp paper placed on record which could not have been arrived at without affording opportunity to the party in support of objection raised by way of leading evidence. 11. So far as suit filed by petitioner -reference whereof has been made is concerned, Counsel submits that he withdrew the same in view of settled legal position that suit even otherwise is not contemplated in view of Order 21, Rule 101, CPC. 11. So far as suit filed by petitioner -reference whereof has been made is concerned, Counsel submits that he withdrew the same in view of settled legal position that suit even otherwise is not contemplated in view of Order 21, Rule 101, CPC. In my opinion, suit otherwise was not maintainable since all questions relating to right, title or interest in the suit property arising among parties to execution proceedings on application under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, could have been examined by learned executing Court under Order 21, Rule 101 CPC by adjudication of application raising objection and not by separate suit and the Court has jurisdiction to decide all such questions. Hence order impugned smacks of jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 12. Consequently, this revision petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dated 11.03.2004 passed by ADJ No. 5, Jaipur City in CMA No. 53/03 and dated 05.08.2003 passed by executing Court in Execution No. 16/02 are set aside. Matter is remanded back to the executing Court for adjudication of the dispute raised by petitioner objector in his Objection Application No. 3/03 in accordance with law after affording opportunity under Order 21 Rule 101, CPC. Parties are directed to appear before executing Court on 21.08.2006. No order as to costs. Stay Application No. 762/04 stands disposed of . 13. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below forthwith for compliance.