JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This Second appeal has been (sic) against order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the learned Executing Court dismissing objections filed by appellants under order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure which has been affirmed by the learned first appellate Court by the impugned order date 29th October, 2009. 2. The Facts in short for disposal of this appeal, are that a civil suit was filed by the plaintiffs for eviction on certain grounds envisaged under section 12 (1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 (in short 'the Act') against the respondent no. 3 Purushottam Sharma, the said suit for eviction was filed on the basis of the relationship of landlord and tenant which was decreed by learned trial Court on 31.08.2005. The first appeal, which was filed by respondent no. 3 Purushottam Sharma, was dismissed on 16.11.2007 by learned First Appellate court and the judgments of the two courts below have affirmed by this Court on 21.8.2008 by dismissing the tenant's Second Appeal No. 845 of 2007. The tenant Purushottam Sharma/ respondent no. 3/ defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court which was dismissed on 15.5.2009. However, Purushottam Sharma respondent no. 3/ defendant has been granted time to vacate the suit premises upto 28th February, 2010. Undisputedly, present objectors/ appellants were not the party in the eviction suit, which was based upon the relationship of the landlord and tenant. 3. Shri Soni learned Counsel appearing for appellants assisting Sr. Advocate Shri H.D. Gupta has submitted that in the written statement, Purushottam Sharma has pleaded that he is the tenant of Hari Bhau and Dattatrey Devsthale. Said Dattatrey is also the brother of Hari Bhau and is also the vendor of plaintiffs/ respondents no.1 and 2 namely Pankaj and Vikas. When the decree was put to execution, Present objectors-appellants have filed objections under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure that they are real owners of the suit property which is part of Survey no. 855 in which, they are having half share in the suit premises. In the executing Court, appellants/objectors have filed certified copy of the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sabhalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2004 (Harigopal alias Hari Bhau through LRs Laxmi Bai and others Vs. 855 in which, they are having half share in the suit premises. In the executing Court, appellants/objectors have filed certified copy of the judgment dated 28.2.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sabhalgarh, District Morena in Civil Appeal No. 46 of 2004 (Harigopal alias Hari Bhau through LRs Laxmi Bai and others Vs. State of M.P.) In this appeal, Dattatrey Devsthale S/o Gopal Rao Devsthale was arrayed as appellant no.3. Similarly, another Judgment was passed by the same court in Civil suit no. 54A of 2004 in which parties were Hrigopal alias Hari Bhau (dead) through LRs and other person including vendor of the plaintiffs namely Dattatrey Devsthale who was one of the plaintiff and the said suit was dismissed on 28.2.2005. 4. In the objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that indeed, by objectors/appellants are the owners of the suit property. Several documents have been field by the appellants/objectors including above said two judgments holding that the vendor of the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property. 5. Reply was filed by decree holders/respondents no.1 and 2 against objections filed under order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure by objectors/ appellants. Learned Executing Court in summary manner without recording the evidence of the parties, dismissed objections and the appeal which was filed by appellants has also been dismissed by the Appellate Court vide Impugned Judgment. 6. This Court has admitted this second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) Whether learned two courts below have erred in substantial error of law in dismissing objection filed on behalf of appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure in summary manner without recording evidence ? (2) Whether approach of learned two courts below dismissing objections of appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedures runs de hors to the procedure as contemplated under rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI Code of Civil Procedure 7. The contention of Shri Gupta learned Sr. (2) Whether approach of learned two courts below dismissing objections of appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedures runs de hors to the procedure as contemplated under rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI Code of Civil Procedure 7. The contention of Shri Gupta learned Sr. counsel for the appellants is that on a bare perusal of Rule 97 of Order XXI CPC it is as clear like a noon day that the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree in accordance with the provision contained in Rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC if the objections are filed by the objectors under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. Further it has been contended by learned Sr. counsel that the approach of learned Executing Court while dismissing the objections of appellants in summary manner is de hors to rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC and the same error has been committed by learned appellant court by dismissing their appeal. By putting emphasis on the word 'adjudicate' used by legislature in Rule 97 of order XXI CPC, it has been contended that it is having a broader spectrum which includes inquiry after recording the evidence. in support of his contention, learned Sr. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Laxmi Sarda Vs. Khushal Chand Khimji and Company 2009 (1) MPLJ 643 . It has also been put forth by learned Sr. Counsel that the judgment rendered in Civil suit No. 54 A of 2003 dated 28.2.2005 by learned additional District Judge, Sabalgarh in which, Dattatrey Devsthale, who is the vendor of the present plaintiffs Pankaj and Vikas, was Plaintiff no. 3. This judgment has attained finality as no appeal has been filed against judgment and the present suit property is the part of the suit property of Civil Suit No. 54A of 2003 because, later on, on the said agricultural land, the suit shops were constructed for which, eviction decree has been passed in favour of decree holders/respondents no. 1 and 2. Learned Sr. counsel has also invited attention of this Court to another judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 46A of 2004 in which, Dattatrey Devsthale who is the vendor of the present plaintiffs /decree holders was appellant no. 1 and 2. Learned Sr. counsel has also invited attention of this Court to another judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh in Civil Suit No. 46A of 2004 in which, Dattatrey Devsthale who is the vendor of the present plaintiffs /decree holders was appellant no. 3 and has submitted that in both these judgments, State of M.P. was party and it was specifically held that the vendor of the present plaintiffs namely Dattatrey Devsthale is not the owner of the property which was the subject matter of those two decisions and the present disputed property is a part of the said property which was in dispute in earlier above said two decisions. 8. Learned Counsel has further submitted that along with the objections, several other documents were also filed by the appellants and therefore, objections under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure filed by objectors/ appellants are not frivolous and fictitious and it requires adjudication after holding a fullfledged inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 101 of Order XXI CPC and because, these objections have been dismissed summarily, hence, the learned two courts below have travelled beyond the scope of Order XXI Rule 97, 98 and 101 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. By inviting my attention to the finding of learned First Appellate court in pare 10 of the impugned judgment, wherein, it has been held that objectors/plaintiffs could have filed separate suit seeking relief, it has been contended by learned Sr. counsel that the said finding runs contrary to the mandatory provision as envisaged under Rule 101 of Order XXI CPC, which clearly states that objections are to be decided in the same proceedings and not by way of separate suit. Hence, it has prayed that by allowing his appeal, impugned judgments passed by learned two Courts below deserves to be set-aside and the case be sent back to learned executing Court with a direction to hold an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC. 10. Hence, it has prayed that by allowing his appeal, impugned judgments passed by learned two Courts below deserves to be set-aside and the case be sent back to learned executing Court with a direction to hold an inquiry as contemplated under Rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC. 10. On the other hand learned counsel for the decree holders respondents have argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that prior to the objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure/ appellants have already filed a separate suit in the court of Second Additional District Judge, Sabalgarh (Civil Suit No. 24A of 2009) against Smt. Laxmi Bai and other including the two decree holders and the vendor namely Dattatrey Devsthale and that civil suit is still pending, but the application for issuance of temporary injuction filed by objectors has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the decree holders has submitted that the learned two courts below did not commit any error in dismissing objections of the appellant summarily. Hence, it has been prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. Regarding substantial questions of law no.1 and 2. On going through the objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Rule 101 Code of Civil Procedure by the objectors/appellants, it is gathered that they have specifically pleaded how they are the owners of the suit property and are affected parties. The reply has also been filed by decree holders. According to learned Sr. Counsel possession of objectors on the suit property is through their tenant Purushottam Sharma against whom, eviction decree has been passed, in which objectors were admittedly not arrayed as parties. Therefore, on going through the objections filed under Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure and the reply filed by decree holders as well as several documents on record including above said two decisions of the Additional District Judge, this court finds that prima facie, objections which are raised by the appellants/objectors are not frivolous or vexatious and it requires adjudication as contemplated under Rule 101 of Order XXI CPC. On going through the provisions of Order XXI Rule 97 Code of Civil Procedure, this Court finds that in Sub Rule (2) the term 'adjudicate' has been used by the legislature. The word 'adjudicate' has not been defined in CPC but on going through the Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 2 Page 49, the term 'adjudicate' has been explained which reads thus: to adjudge in its strictest sense; to determine finally; to settle in the exercise of judicial authority; to determine in the exercise of judicial power; to solemnly or deliberately determine by judicial power upon a hearing of the rights and interests of the parties involved on the issues and the evidence to be taken and submitted according to some prescribed method, or in the absence thereof, the usual method of procedure known to the statutes or the common law, after a hearing in respect of matters in issue to decide and decree what are the respective rights of the parties as they may appear from the law and evidence adduced. (emphasis supplied) 13. Since without holding an inquiry as envisaged under Rule 101 CPC, the objections which are rejected by learned executing Court, I am of the view that the procedure so adopted by learned executing court is wholly unwarranted under the law and the same mistake has been committed by learned First Appellate Court. 14. This is not a stage to express about the merit or demerit of the objections which are filed by appellants under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC. At this stage, only this much can be said that on its face value, the objections can be said to be prima facie frivolous of vexatious. In support of the objections, the documents are also filed. Hence, according to me, at the threshold, the objections cannot be rejected and it requires adjudication in accordance to Rule 101 of Order XXI CPC. 15. The substantial questions of law no.1 and 2 thus, answered in favour of the appellants. 16. Ex-consequenti, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are here by set aside and the case is being sent back to learned executing Court to hold inquiry as contemplated under Rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC and thereafter, fresh decision be passed. The parties are hereby directed to appear before learned executing Court on 19th April 2010. The impugned orders passed by the courts below are here by set aside and the case is being sent back to learned executing Court to hold inquiry as contemplated under Rule 98 and 101 of Order XXI CPC and thereafter, fresh decision be passed. The parties are hereby directed to appear before learned executing Court on 19th April 2010. The Registry is hereby directed to send the record posthaste to learned Executing court so as to reach Executing Court much prior to the date of appearance of the parties. This Court hopes and trusts that learned executing Court shall decide the objections of the appellants as early as possible preferable within a period of six months from today. Looking to the facts of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.