Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant revision petition has been filed at the instance of objector (applicant) assailing order dated 11.01.2002 whereby Executing Court (ADJ No. 3, Jaipur City) over-ruled objections raised in his application (Civil Misc. Case No. 24/01) U/O 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code. 2. Facts, in brief , are that decree holder (Respondent No. 1) instituted Civil Suit No. 75/98 against tenant Respondent No. 2 (Judgment -debtors) seeking his eviction on the ground of personal necessity, material alterations and sub-letting. Plea of sub-letting was not pressed against tenant (Subhash Pareek). The tenant (Respondent No. 2) did not appear despite service and accordingly ex parte decree was passed by competent Court of jurisdiction vide Judgment dated 17.08.2000. 3. In the plaint, decree holder pleaded inter-alia that suit premises was let out to Subhash Pareek by an oral agreement on 012.1988 on a rent of Rs. 1,150/-per month and after August, 1997, the tenant Respondent No. 2 discontinued to pay monthly rent. Since, the tenant avoided service of notice and summons could not have been served upon him, notices were served by substituted service after publication in daily news paper “Dainik Navjyoti” on 11.1998 as ordered by the trial Court and despite publication (Supra), the tenant failed to appear; as such ex parte proceedings were ordered and finally ex parte decree was passed on 17.08.2000. 4. Decree holder (Respondent No. 1) filed application for execution of decree (Supra) and taking possession of suit premises. In course of execution proceedings, petitioner moved an application under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code raising objection to the execution, inter-alia averring that he is in possession of decreetal premises as an tenant since May, 1998 on monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, where he has been running scooter repairing shop and is occupying the suit premises whereas Subhash Pareek against whom decree has been obtained, was never in possession after May, 1998 as he was not his tenant. It was further averred that had Subhash Pareek been occupying as tenant in suit premises, notices in ordinary course could have been served upon him but since petitioner was in possession over it as tenant, notice of Subhash Pareek could not have been served. It was further averred that had Subhash Pareek been occupying as tenant in suit premises, notices in ordinary course could have been served upon him but since petitioner was in possession over it as tenant, notice of Subhash Pareek could not have been served. In support of averments made in the application, petitioner produced copies of electricity bills, letter head, Bank pass-book and other documents in order to show his possession over the suit premises as tenant since May, 1998 and prayed that without impleading him as party and affording opportunity of hearing, the decree obtained by the decree holder is liable to be set aside. 5. Application of objector petitioner was opposed by the decree holder and inter-alia contended that mere possession of the suit property will not be sufficient unless it is shown that he was ever recognised as tenant and paid any rent to the decree holder or in what capacity he is in possession over premises under impugned decree; and it was further pleaded that Subhash Pareek was his tenant and to just defeat the decree passed in his favour, petitioner has been put in possession of decreetal premises, who is not having any legal right, title or interest and if such application is allowed it may certainly frustrate right of landlord (decree holder) who never let out decreetal premises to petitioner objector nor he had ever paid any rent to him. 6. After considering material on record, the learned Executing Court recorded a finding that indisputably petitioner is in possession of suit property but since he has failed to prima facie show as to how he has been in possession of suit premises, inasmuch as mere possession as alleged will not hold him entitled to seek opportunity of leading evidence as provided under Order 21 Rule 97(2) read with Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code and accordingly rejected his application vide letter impugned. Hence, this revision petition. 7. Counsel for the objector-petitioner contends that the Executing Court has not taken note of procedure referred to in Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code and disposed of his application without affording opportunity of hearing to prove his claim of tenancy and without holding proper inquiry as required to be made by recording of evidence being led by either party, very finding recorded under order impugned is not legally sustainable and deserves to be set aside. 8. 8. Counsel further submits that it was specifically pleaded by petitioner in his application that he is in actual possession of decreetal premises since May, 1998 and Subhash Pareek who was arrayed as defendant tenant in the suit, was never in physical possession and for this good reason, summons could not have been served upon and by adopting substituted service, notices were deemed to be served; as such he is at least entitled for opportunity to defend himself as per procedure such he is at least entitled for opportunity to defend himself as per procedure provided under Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code. In this regard, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Silverline Forum (P) Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust, AIR 1998 SC 1754 ; Brahmdeo vs. Rishikesh Pd. Jaiswal, AIR 1997 SC 856 ; Tanzeem-E-Sufia vs. Bibi Haliman, 2002 (7) SCC 50 ; and H. Sheshadri vs. K.R. Natarajan, 2003 (10) SCC 449 = 2004 CDR 493 (SC). 9. Per contra, Counsel for decree holder supported the finding recorded by Executing Court and submitted that mere possession over the suit premises was not sufficient to give an opportunity to lead evidence and to hold inquiry as provided under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 Civil Procedure Code unless there was prima facie material to justify his legal possession over the decreetal premises and how his right, title or interest in any manner is going to be adversely affected; and that apart, once it was a case of petitioner pleading his possession over decreetal premises since May, 1998 as tenant on a rent of Rs. 2,500/-, contrarily petitioner failed to show prima facie of his oral tenancy by producing any rent receipts, if ever paid to the decree holder-in absence whereof there is no material irregularity committed under order impugned and it is for the Court to adopt procedure for adjudication, in the manner if so like as provided under Order 21 Rule 97(2) Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention, Counsel placed reliance upon the same decision as referred to by petitioners’ Counsel but contended that it is not always required that whenever there is an application failed by objector resisting decree under Order 21 Rule 97(1) Civil Procedure Code, the Court is under obligation to permit the parties to lead evidence by adopting mechanism under Order 21 Rule 101 Civil Procedure Code. 10. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, examined material and pondered over the finding recorded by the Executing Court under order impugned. Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code clearly envisages that execution of the decree can be resisted or obstructed by any person, which includes a stranger as well who claims an independent right, title and interest in the decreetal property and resistance can always be made by submitting application to the Court under Order 21 Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code, and where such application is filed, the Court has a discretion to adopt procedure for adjudicating upon the application in accordance with provisions of Civil Procedure Code. 11. Only question raised for consideration herein is as to whether failure on the part of the Executing Court to adjudicate the issues raised by objector for resisting the decree and not permitting to lead evidence has resulted in failure of justice or jurisdictional error or material irregularity. Scope of ad-judicatory process under Order 21 Rule 97(2), Civil Procedure Code was considered by Apex Court in Silver line Forum (P) Ltd. vs. Rajiv Trust, (Supra) relevant observations read:- “12-13. It is clear that executing Court can decide whether the resistor or obstructer is a person bound by the decree and he refuses to vacate the property. That question also squarely falls within the 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. Court can make the adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resistor. Of course the Court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination it the Court deems it necessary”. Indisputably, under Order 21 Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code, all questions even relating to right, title or interest in suit property arising between the parties can be resolved and determined by the Court on the basis of affidavits and if finds any detailed inquiry, permit the parties to adduce evidence but no separate suit is required to be filed by the objector. 12. This Court in Vaishnav Brahmin Trust Jodhpur vs. Ramesh Chandra, 2004 WLC (Raj) 581 after taking note of scheme as provided in Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code onwards, observed in Para 22 as under: “22. 12. This Court in Vaishnav Brahmin Trust Jodhpur vs. Ramesh Chandra, 2004 WLC (Raj) 581 after taking note of scheme as provided in Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code onwards, observed in Para 22 as under: “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 appeal or otherwise, 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. 13. The legal position which emerges from decisions (Supra) is that objection raised under Order 21, Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code and adjudication of objection by resister or obstructer to the decree can always depend upon facts of each case either through affidavits filed accompanying application and documents in support thereof , or through regular inquiry if the Court comes to the conclusion that averments made by resister needs the parties to adduce evidence as necessary for such determination of dispute. Thus, discretion has been left with the Executing Court in facts and circumstances of the case pleaded in the application under Order 21 Rules 97 Civil Procedure Code with regard to the mode which has to be accepted for its adjudication and it is not always necessary to adopt a procedure to be followed as a regular suit culminating into decree. 14. In instant case, petitioner in his application under Order 21 Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code raised objection that decreetal premises is in his possession but no supporting material has been placed by which it can be inferred that he is in possession as a tenant or is having legal possession over suit premises or has paid rent @ Rs. 2,500/-per month as claimed by him to the landlord (decree holder) since May, 1998, and no documentary evidence has been produced to prima facie establish his claim of possession as tenant. 2,500/-per month as claimed by him to the landlord (decree holder) since May, 1998, and no documentary evidence has been produced to prima facie establish his claim of possession as tenant. Mere possession is not sufficient unless supported by prima facie documentary evidence to the adjudication of dispute through leading evidence about his right of tenancy since May, 1998 by holding inquiry under Order 21 Rule 101, Civil Procedure Code. In absence whereof , I do not find any error in the finding recorded by Executing Court that the documentary evidence prima facie does not establish legal possession of the petitioner over decreetal premises as tenant and based on it, rightly held that on mere possession the petitioner has no right to resist or obstruct the decree of eviction and in my opinion the Executing Court has not committed jurisdictional error or material irregularity by holding inquiry through leading evidence in respect of objection raised by petitioner in his application under Order 21 Rule 97, Civil Procedure Code and rejection whereof has not resulted in any illegality so as to invoke revisional jurisdiction by this Court. 15. Lastly I deal with the Judgment s on which reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioner. In Brahmdeo vs. Rishikesh Pd. Jaiswal, (Supra), basic issue for consideration was as to whether stranger to the decree can get his claim adjudicated even prior to losing possession to decree holder. It was a case where the executing Court without adjudicating upon objections of the appellant on merits and without deciding whether the obstruction or resistance offered by him was legally justified or not dismissed his application. The Apex Court held that once resistance is offered by a purported stranger to the decree and comes to be noted by the Executing Court as well as by decree holder, the remedy available to the decree holder against such an obstructionist is only Order 21 Rule 97(1), Civil Procedure Code, which he cannot bye-pass and insist on issuance of warrant for possession under Order 21 Rule 35, Civil Procedure Code; and once obstruction is noted on record before the Executing Court, such obstructionist cannot be asked by the Court to first loose possession and then to avail of remedy by way of application under Order 21 Rule 99 Civil Procedure Code, stranger to the decree can claim his independent right, title and interest in decreetal property. While it is not the issue for consideration in instant case before this Court. 16. In Tanzeem-E-Sufia vs. Bibi Haliman, (Supra), the same issue as in Brahmdeo vs. Rishikesh Pd. Jaiswal, (Supra) was for consideration. 17. In H. Sheshadri vs. K.R. Natarajan, (Supra), objector while resisting the decree of eviction had come with a case of an independent right in decreetal premises as a tenant and he was paying rent to the landlord decree holder and was in legal possession and not a trespasser over the decreetal premises while in instant case, as observed above, except possession of decreetal premises, nothing was placed on record to prima facie show that he was either a tenant or has ever paid rent whereof to the decree holder for his possession since May, 1998. In my opinion, none of the decisions cited (Supra) is of any help to the Counsel for petitioner. 18. As observed above, indisputably even a stranger has a right to obstruct and resist the decree and has locus standi to raise objection and it is for the Court to decide as to which of modes has to be adopted while examining objections raised and there cannot be hard and fast rule that whenever application is filed, such objection has to be tried as a regular suit by permitting either of parties to adduce evidence. Since, in instant case there was no prima facie material on record to show independent right, title or interest over decreetal premises claimed by resister (third party) (petitioner), learned trial Court took note of totality of facts brought by objector in his application and has not found any merit thereon. 19. Consequently, this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. Stay order dated 06.02.2002 stands vacated.