JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the objector against the judgment dated 28.9.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh whereby his objections against the judgment and decree dated 5.6.1991 passed by the said court has been rejected. 2. In this appeal it is noticed that the same has been filed in the nature of civil misc. appeal claiming the same to be under Order 21 Rule 58(4) CPC. The provisions of Order 21 Rule 58(4) CPC reads as under:- "Rule 58(4) : Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree." 3. The said rule merely indicates that the adjudication order of objections under Order 21 Rule 58 shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. 4. Once it is provided that an order passed under Rule 58 ORDER 21 is a decree, in the particular context of appeal, Section 96 CPC gets attracted. Section 96 CPC does not enumerate the types of decrees that can fall into its fold. Once, the outcome of adjudication partakes the character of a decree, it is well within the parameters of Section 96 CPC. Section 104 CPC, on the other hand is neither general nor residuary in nature. It is only those orders, which answer the descriptions contained in its clauses, that are appealable in it. Section 104 as it stands provides for appeals against five categories of orders and admittedly an order under Rule 58 ORDER 21 does not fall in the same. In view thereof, as per the clear language of sub-rule 4 of Rule 58 an order passed under sub-rule 3 thereof, partakes a character of a decree for all purposes, more so, in the context of availing the remedy of appeal, therefore, in the context of deciding the forum and provision of appeal, the order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 cannot be treated differently. 5. However, even if it has been held that the civil misc. 5. However, even if it has been held that the civil misc. appeal as such is not maintainable and appeal under Section 96 CPC against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC must be filed as Civil Execution First Appeal as the same only would be maintainable, does not affect the maintainability of the present appeal, as such, on account of limitation and court fees, inasmuch as, the limitation would be the same as provided for Civil Misc. Appeal and the court fees would be as provided in Schedule-II Article 11(h) read with Section 47 of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961. However, the office is directed to categorise the said appeals as Execution First Appeals in future. 6. Further, in view of the fact that the present case is pending after admission since 1996 as Civil Misc. Appeal, the same is being decided as it is. 7. Coming to the facts of the case, a money decree dated 5.6.1991 was passed in favour of Usman Gani Khan S/o Shri Nathe Khan and Hastimal S/o Shri Indermal Ji against Chaturbhuj S/o Shri Sola Ji for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. In execution one house, bada and a nohara situated at Lunera, Tehsil Kapasan were attached. 8. The appellant herein Lehru filed objections under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC inter-alia with the averments that the land which has been attached and is sought to be auctioned is neither in possession or of the title of Chaturbhuj, who is father of objector Lehru, and in fact appellant is in possession of the said property. The property is not self acquired property of Chaturbhuj, the same is ancestral property and after death of Sola Ji, it became a coparcenary property of objector and the judgment debtor. Properties in question have been got attached mala fidely. Ultimately, it was prayed that the same may be released from attachment. 9. A reply to the said objections were interestingly filed by Chaturbhuj only denying the allegations made in the objection petition and claiming that objector is neither a coparcener nor he is in possession. The objector was alleged to be son of Godia and it was further alleged that objector Lehru came to Chaturbhuj with his mother Noji as 'Gelad' with whom (Noji) he had entered into a nata marriage. Ultimately, it was prayed that the objections be rejected. 10. The objector was alleged to be son of Godia and it was further alleged that objector Lehru came to Chaturbhuj with his mother Noji as 'Gelad' with whom (Noji) he had entered into a nata marriage. Ultimately, it was prayed that the objections be rejected. 10. During the pendency of the objections one application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was filed by the appellant herein seeking to implead Hastimal inter-alia with the averments that due to typing mistake Hastimal could not be impleaded as a party and, therefore, he should be impleaded as a party. The said application came to be rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 24.9.1996 on account of delay and on coming to the conclusion that presence of Hastimal at that stage for effective adjudication was not necessary. The trial court also observed that if during the pendency of the case, the Court feels the necessity of impleading him, necessary order would be passed. 11. After hearing the parties, learned trial court vide its order dated 28.9.1996 rejected the objection petition holding that Lehru failed to prove that he was member of the coparcenary and the property being ancestral and he has interest in the said property, Lehru did not take any proceedings for setting aside the decree and decree has become final, Hastimal was not impleaded as party and even if it is held that objector has any interest in the property as the loan was taken by Chaturbhuj the property was under liability and as such, the objector was not entitled to raise any objections. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. 13. It is submitted at the outset by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court failed to adhere to the procedure for determination of the rights of the parties on the objections filed by the appellant. No issues / points for determination were framed, parties were not allowed to lead any evidence and merely relying on the averments made in the objection petition and the reply filed by Chaturbhuj, the objection petition has been rejected. No issues / points for determination were framed, parties were not allowed to lead any evidence and merely relying on the averments made in the objection petition and the reply filed by Chaturbhuj, the objection petition has been rejected. It was further submitted that the learned trial court itself rejected the application for impleadment of Hastimal and while rejecting the said application observed that if during the course of proceedings presence of Hastimal is felt necessary, he would be impleaded as a party. However, absence of Hastimal has been made a basis for rejecting the objection petition. It was also submitted that if the appellant was afforded proper opportunity to lead evidence, he could have proved his case, in absence of any opportunity grave injustice has been done to him, inasmuch as, the immovable of which he is in possession is sought to be put to auction on account of decree passed against Chaturbhuj. The findings about the appellant's right in the property based on the alleged nata marriage of his mother with Chaturbhuj were also sought to be disputed. Ultimately, it was prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the matter be remanded back to the learned trial court for proceeding with the matter as per provisions of law. 14. Learned counsel placed reliance on , Pohlo Ram Sharma & Ors. v. Narinder Singh Randhawa & Ors. and another judgment Gram Panchayat, Hassanpur v. Jagdish Chand & Ors. in support of his contention that where objections are not totally frivolous then the Court is required to frame issues and permit parties to lead his evidence and decide the said issues. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment passed by the learned trial court, it was inter-alia contended that the appellant has failed to prove any of the averments made in the objection petition. His locus standi has been questioned by Chaturbhuj himself whom the appellant claims to be his father and, therefore, the learned trial court was fully justified in rejecting the said objections preferred by the appellant. It was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed with costs. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 17. As noticed hereinafter, the order adjudicating the claim under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC partakes the character of a decree. It was prayed that the appeal may be dismissed with costs. 16. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 17. As noticed hereinafter, the order adjudicating the claim under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC partakes the character of a decree. Therefore, the adjudication is not summary and apparently it is the intention of the legislature under the amended CPC that the decision rendered under the said provision should be a decision as if rendered in a regular suit resulting in an appealable decree, therefore, the fuller examination of the rights of the parties has to be held after giving them adequate opportunity to place all relevant materials before the Court so that the Court could ultimately decide and adjudicate on all questions including the questions relating to title or interest in the property attached. 18. It may also be noticed that changes were effected in the provisions relating to Rule 58 ORDER 21 and several other provisions of Order 21 in order to provide a more effective remedy for the parties and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to give finality to order passed under the Rules, subject to the limitation contained in the rule, namely the order being liable to challenge in appeal. The provision does not provide for the enquiry of a summary nature and it is open to a party to adduce evidence to prove his claim. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, wherever objections are filed under these provisions, the same must be heard and disposed of by following a procedure akin to that which obtained the disposal of the suit. This Court would hasten to add that the above principle would also admit questioning of maintainability of such objection in the nature of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, if the objections on there face are frivolous, barred by law or not maintainable under any of the provisions. 19. This Court would hasten to add that the above principle would also admit questioning of maintainability of such objection in the nature of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, if the objections on there face are frivolous, barred by law or not maintainable under any of the provisions. 19. In the present case though no opportunity was given to the appellant to lead evidence despite that the learned trial court came to the conclusion as under:- ^^ mDr edku ,oa uksgjs ds lEcU/k esa mtznkj yg: dk mij mYys[kkuqlkj dFku gS fd 'kksyk dh e`R;q ds ckn ;g lEifRr bldh rFkk en;wu prZHkqt dh dksiklujh lEifRr gS vkSj en;wu prZHkqt us 20 lky ls iwoZ gh edku ,oa uksgjs dk dCtk bldks lEHkyk fn;k gSA blds foijhr en;wu prZHkqt dk Li"V dFku gS fd mtznkj yg: mldk iq= ugha gS D;ksafd tc mlus viuh iRuh dh e`R;q ds ckn uksth ls ukrk fd;k rks uksth ds lkFk ( xsyj ) gSA ;g yg: mldk tk;Unk iq= ugha gS vkSj bl izdkj 'kksyk ls izkIr lEifRr esa ;k dksiklujh lEifRr esa yg: dk tUetkr dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g fl) djus dk Hkkj iw.kZr% mtznkj yg: ij vk tkrk gS fd og pr: dk tk;Unk iq= gS] u fd prZHkqt ds lkFk ukrk fookg esa lkFk vkrk gqvk uksth dk iq= gSA bl lEcU/k esa yg: }kjk i=koyh ij dksbZ Hkh lk{; is'k ugha gh xbZ gSA ,d Hkh xokg ds dFku U;k;ky; esa ugha djk, x, gS ftlls ftjg djus dk volj en;wu prZHkqt dks izkIr gksrkA bl izdkj izFker% rks yg: ;g gh fl) ugha dj ldk gS fd og Hkh dksiklujh dk lnL; gS vkSj iSr`d lEifRr gksus ds dkj.k mldk Hkh dksiklZujh ds lnL; ds :i esa bl lEifRr ij vf/kdkj gSA ;g lEifRr yg: esa dksiklZujh lnL; ds :i esa U;Lr gksuk gh fl) ugha gks ldk gSA ** 20. From the above, it is clear that despite the fact that neither any issue/point of determination was framed by the learned trial court nor any opportunity to lead evidence was provided to the parties, but still while deciding the objection the court observed that no evidence has been produced on record, none of the witness has been examined in the court, who could be cross-examined by Chaturbhuj. The reasoning for reaching conclusion as reached above are on face of it incorrect and against the procedure adopted by the court itself and, therefore, the said finding cannot be sustained. Further the finding given by the learned trial court that Hastimal was not impleaded as party is also quite curious. Just four days before passing of the impugned order i.e. on 24.9.1996, as noticed hereinbefore, the Court itself has held that if during the course of proceedings, the court finds that presence of Hastimal was necessary, he would be impleaded as party. However, when the occasion came, the absence of Hastimal was also used by the Court for returning the finding against the appellant, which finding is also apparently against the record of the case.21. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 28.9.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh in Civil Misc. Case No. 29 of 1995, Lehru v. Chaturbhuj & Anr. is set aside, the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court with a direction to frame issues and provide adequate opportunity to the parties to lead evidence both documentary and oral and thereafter decide the said objection. The order dated 24.9.1996 rejecting the appellant's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is also set aside and Hastimal S/o Shri Indermal Ji is ordered to be impleaded as a party respondent to the objection petition filed by the appellant.No costs.Appeal allowed. *******