JUDGMENT : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. The instant appeal is a prime example of how judicial process is being misused by unscrupulous litigants to prolong life of a lis even after adjudication right upto the highest court of the land. 2. Present appeal arises out of judgment dated 22.2.2017 passed by Addl. District Judge No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, in Objection Application No.8/2017 filed by the appellant under Order 21, Rule 97-106 read with section 151 CPC. 3. The short facts necessary to be noticed are that one Smt. Neelu Dhandhiya [the decree holder] had filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 16.12.2006 against Abdul Sami [the judgment debtor]. The said suit was decreed by the trial court on 5.9.2012. The said judgment and decree was assailed by the judgment debtor in the form of First Appeal before this court but such challenge remained unsuccessful resulting in dismissal of the First Appeal on 8.12.2014. The result was further challenged before the Apex court by preferring SLP, but the fate remained the same and the SLP was dismissed by the Apex court on 7.5.2015. 4. Meanwhile the decree holder filed an execution petition for execution of the decree passed in her favour and sale-deed was executed by the Executing court in favour of the decree holder on 29.4.2015, but the matter did not rest there. 5. In order to thwart the decree holder from reaping the fruits of the decree, a new series of raising objections was initiated. First in this line was an objection raised by none else than the wife of judgment debtor contending that part of the property was orally gifted to her on 5.10.1981 by her father-in-law late Shri Abdul Samad, the father of judgment debtor. She contended that such alleged oral gift was reduced in writing on 3.11.1981 and she was in possession of the said part of the property since then and the decree was in executable against her. This objection petition was dismissed by the Executing court on 6.11.2015, against which an Execution First Appeal no.15/2015 was filed, which was dismissed by this court on 7.12.2015. While dismissing the above Execution First Appeal the coordinate Bench of this court was constraint to note as under :- 2. This objection petition was dismissed by the Executing court on 6.11.2015, against which an Execution First Appeal no.15/2015 was filed, which was dismissed by this court on 7.12.2015. While dismissing the above Execution First Appeal the coordinate Bench of this court was constraint to note as under :- 2. "This is one of the classic cases of misuse of process of law, whereby the present appellant-objector wife of the respondent No.2-judgment debtor, had filed the objection petition before the executing court obstructing the respondent No.1-decree holder from taking over the possession of the suit premises, after the respondent No.2, having failed in all the proceedings right upto the Supreme Court. " 9. "In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any substance in the present appeal, on the contrary the Court finds that the entire proceedings of the objection petition was filed by the appellant only to cause obstruction to the respondent No.1 in obtaining the possession of the suit property, abusing and misusing the process of law at the instance of the respondent No.2. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.1 within two weeks. If the appellant fails to pay the same, the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to recover the same in accordance with law. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. By this order the stay application also stands dismissed. The executing court is directed to decide the execution proceedings as expeditiously as possible S.B. Execution First Appeal No.15/2015 8 in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Satyawati v. Rajinder Singh and Another, (2013) 9 SCC 491 . " 6. Thereafter on 6.2.2016, son of the judgment debtor Abdul Wajid filed an Objection Petition on the basis of an alleged oral "Hiba" by his grandfather Late Shri Abdul Samad but the same was dismissed by the Executing Court on 26.10.2016 by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-. An application dated 9.8.2016 was also preferred by Abdul Wajid under section 114 and 151 CPC which was dismissed by the Executing Court on 17.8.2016 by imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/-. 7. 10,000/-. An application dated 9.8.2016 was also preferred by Abdul Wajid under section 114 and 151 CPC which was dismissed by the Executing Court on 17.8.2016 by imposing a cost of Rs. 2000/-. 7. This gave rise to another Objection Petition being filed on 2.11.2016 by another son of the judgment debtor Abdul Wali on the basis of alleged "Hibanama" dated 3.11.1981 and after hearing, the same was dismissed by Executing Court on 15.12.2016 by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. The very next day, on 16.12.2016, again one Smt. Mazid Ali filed an Objection Petition on the basis of an alleged oral "Hiba" by late Shri Abdul Samad dated 1.2.1983 and the same was dismissed after hearing by the Executing Court on 17.1.2017. This time the quantum of the cost was increased to Rs. 20,000/- 9. But this did not deter the filing of objection petitions and a fifth Objection Petition was filed by the present appellant Mohammed Aslam claiming that there exists a Wakf property Dargah Hazrat Makdoon Shah Sahab in village Matera, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) which is registered at no.26/37 in the Wakf register and which is managed by him along with his three brothers by effect of a Will dated 6.2.2007 executed by his father Islamuddin @ Chhotu Khan. It was further asserted that apart from property gifted on 3.11.1981 to the judgment debtor's wife on 10.2.1983, rest of the property property was declared by Abdul Samad [the father of judgment debtor] as Wakf Al Ul Aulad with a direction to dedicate an amount of Rs. 6000/- per year out of income from such alleged Wakf property to Dargah Hazrat Makdoon Shah Sahab. Thus it was asserted that the suit property being part of larger Wakf property, was non-transferable and thus the agreement which was the basis of the suit for specific performance was void ab initio. 10. It was further asserted in the objection petition that after the year 2010 as legal heirs of Late Shri Abdul Samad, in violation of the alleged "Wakfnama" dated 10.2.1983, stopped sending the annuity of Rs. 6000/- created by the "Wakfnama" and were desperate to transfer property, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed before the Wakf Tribunal along with an application for temporary injunction against the judgment debtor and other legal heirs of Abdul Samad. 6000/- created by the "Wakfnama" and were desperate to transfer property, a suit for declaration and injunction was filed before the Wakf Tribunal along with an application for temporary injunction against the judgment debtor and other legal heirs of Abdul Samad. It was asserted that on 6.1.2016, order to maintain status quo was passed by the Wakf Tribunal which was effective till date. 11. The appellant objector, further stated that on 3.1.2017 when he appeared before the Wakf Tribunal one Wasim Mohammed Ansari, Advocate for Abdul Sami, the judgment debtor, revealed the fact of pendency of the Execution Petition, whereupon on 31.1.2017 itself, file of the case before the Executing court was inspected which brought to the knowledge of the objector that Wakf property was illegally sold and hence Objection Petition under Order 21, Rule 97-106 read with section 151 CPC was filed before the Executing court. 12. The Executing court after hearing the Objector and analysing the entire material available on record concluded that the theory of alleged "Wakfnama" dated 10.2.1983, evolved by the Objector was nothing but a device to scuttle the Execution proceedings designed in connivance with the judgment debtor and others. The Executing court after a threadbare analysis of the entire factual matrix taking note of various judicial proceedings initiated by the family members of the judgment debtor, not only dismissed the Objection Petition and imposed a special cost of Rs. 50,000/- but also ordered FIR to be registered against the appellant objector, the judgment debtor, one other objector Thatir Fatima, wife of the judgment debtor and others for fabricating and producing before the court forged "Wakfnama" dated 10.2.1983, forged "Hibanama" dated 3.11.1981, with an intent to fraudulently grab property of the decree holder. The Executing court further directed that investigation of such FIR ought to be conducted by a police officer equivalent in rank to Assistant Police Commissioner. 13. Feeling highly aggrieved by such order the appellant has come up before this court by filing the instant Execution First Appeal. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the course adopted by the Executing court was wholly perverse and illegal. Learned counsel contended that the Objection Petition under Order 21, Rule 97-106 CPC is akin to a suit and the Executing court committed a grave mistake in deciding the Objection Petition without framing any issue and without providing the opportunity to lead oral evidence. Learned counsel contended that the Objection Petition under Order 21, Rule 97-106 CPC is akin to a suit and the Executing court committed a grave mistake in deciding the Objection Petition without framing any issue and without providing the opportunity to lead oral evidence. Learned counsel further stressed that Abdul Samad, father of the judgment debtor, declared the suit property as Wakf Al Ul Aulad with a direction to dedicate Rs. 6000/- per year out of income from such Wakf property to Dargah Hazrat Makdoon Shah Sahab and a "Wakfnama" was executed on 10.2.1983. Thus, according to him by virtue of such an act, the property became non transferable and the agreement executed in favour of the decree holder by legal heirs of Abdul Samad was void and illegal. Learned counsel further contended that Wakf Tribunal was seized of the matter and a stay order was passed by such Tribunal, but the Executing court usurp the jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal and illegally commented upon the "Wakfnama" dated 10.2.1983 and the judicial proceedings pending before the Wakf Tribunal. He further contended that the Executing court committed a grave error in connecting the instant Objection Petition with the earlier Objection Petitions, ignoring that the appellant objector is not a family member of the judgment debtor and had an independent right, title and interest in the suit property. Learned counsel further stressed that the approach adopted by the Executing court suffered from the vice of biasness as can be gauged from the fact that the Executing court went to the extent of imposing exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- and lodging of an FIR with direction of an investigation by a senior police officer equivalent in rank to Assistant Police Commissioner. Thus, according to him the impugned order was perverse and illegal inflicting serious injury upon the appellant objector and was liable to be quashed and set aside. 50,000/- and lodging of an FIR with direction of an investigation by a senior police officer equivalent in rank to Assistant Police Commissioner. Thus, according to him the impugned order was perverse and illegal inflicting serious injury upon the appellant objector and was liable to be quashed and set aside. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments :- Sameer Singh & Another v. Abdul Rab & Others 2014 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 751 Sayyed Ali & Others v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad & Others (1998) 2 SCC 642 Babulal v. Raj Kumar & Others AIR 1996 SC 2050 Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal & Another AIR 1997 SC 856 Shreenath & Another v. Rajesh & Others 1998 (2) RLW (SC) 279 Balraj Singh & Another v. Ajit Singh 2004 (4) WLC (Raj) 85 Jeet Mohammed v. Jatinder Kaur & Another AIR 2009 HP 44 Hazi Abdul Gafar v. Suraj Mal 1999 (1) RLW (Raj) 689 Sukhdev Parasram Gond & Others v. State of MP & Others AIR 2013 MP 78 Smt. Sarita Gupta v. Sudhir Jaju & Others 1996 DNJ (Raj) 685 15. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent decree holder, refuting the objections raised by the appellant objector, contended that the sheet-anchor of the claim of the objector the alleged "Wakfnama" dated 10.2.1983, was not produced in original by the objector either before the Wakf Tribunal or the Executing court which amply displayed that it was nothing but farce. Learned counsel drew attention of the court towards the proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal and the manner in which stay order was obtained by the appellant objector, acting in concert with the judgment debtor, playing fraud upon the Tribunal. Learned counsel also drew attention of the court towards various legal proceedings initiated by the family members of the judgment debtor to frustrate the decree obtained by the decree holder, which decree had received the stamp of approval upto the highest court of the land. Supporting the imposition of exemplary cost, and direction to lodge FIR passed by the Executing court, the learned counsel contended that such frivolous and vexatious litigation ought to be nipped in the bud at the threshold and such litigants met with firm hands and prayed for dismissal of the appeal with further imposition of costs in addition to cost imposed by the Executing court. 16. 16. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments :- Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajit Trust & Another AIR 1998 SC 1754 Kazi Akeel Ahmed v. Ibrahim & Another JT 1996 (4) SC 444 S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Legal Heirs v. Jagannath (dead) by Legal Heirs & Others AIR 1994 SC 853 17. Mr. Kaleem Ahmad Khan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the judgment debtor, and having been asked to address on behalf of the judgment debtor, he chose not to reply. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record and put my thoughtful consideration upon the rival contentions raised at the Bar and on the cited judgments. 19. Insofar as the contention raised by the appellant that the Objection Petition under Order 21, Rule 97-106 read with section 151 CPC being of the nature of a suit, framing of issues and providing an opportunity to the objector to lead oral evidence are concerned, the same being devoid of merit, deserve to be rejected. Framing of issues and adopting the detailed trial procedure of a suit is not a sine qua non for adjudication of an Objection Petition under Order 21, Rule 97-106 read with section 151 CPC. The term 'adjudication' as used under Order 21, Rule 97, 98 CPC, does not start and end with the framing of issues but it require appreciation of the case of the objector and the documents in support of such objections. This legal principle is well settled and it need not be further dilated. The following observation of the Apex court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajit Trust (supra) clarifies the legal proposition :- "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 if the Court deems it necessary." 20. The appellant objector claims that the original owner Abdul Samad dedicated and declared the property as Wakf, and executed a Wakfnama on 10.2.1983 but the original Wakfnama was neither produced before the Executing Court nor before the Wakf Tribunal. No explanation was tendered by the appellant even before this court as to the whereabouts of the same. The appellant objector claims that the original owner Abdul Samad dedicated and declared the property as Wakf, and executed a Wakfnama on 10.2.1983 but the original Wakfnama was neither produced before the Executing Court nor before the Wakf Tribunal. No explanation was tendered by the appellant even before this court as to the whereabouts of the same. The objector claims that by virtue of such alleged Wakfnama annuity of Rs. 6000/- was fastened upon the earnings from the property and such amount was paid upto the year 2010 but no document was produced to prove such alleged payment right from the year 1983 to 2010. The property, plot no.C-107, Samad Vila, has not been entered in the Wakf register contemplated under the Wakf Act and no explanation was tendered by the objector in this behalf. 21. The appellant objector has claimed the existence of Wakfnama in the year 1983, but no step was taken by father of the objector to include the same in the Wakf register. In fact the Executing Court has noted that the Wakf Board vide letter no.1238 dated 14.2.2017 informed that the name of the suit property was not shown in the Wakf register. This letter further clarifies that two applications, one by Thatir Fatima, who happens to be wife of the judgment debtor, and whose Objection Petition was earlier rejected, and other by Dr. Abdul Wasi, son of the judgment debtor, was presented before the Board for such entry, which were not entertained. It is interesting to note that the objector states that the alleged document of Wakf was with respect to property excluding the property gifted to Their Fatima, the other objector, and wife of the judgment debtor. Thatir Fatima is the same person whose objection was rejected by the Executing court on 6.11.2015 and such rejection was sustained by order dated 7.12.2015 (referred to hereinbefore). This court by such judgment supra, did not accept the existence of the alleged "Hibanama" dated 3.11.1981 propounded by Thatir Fatima in furtherance of her claim and the same position exists in the instant Objection Petition filed by the appellant objector. The sequence of facts as discussed here-in-above, amply demonstrates that the theory of Wakf Al Ul Aulad propounded by the objector, was nothing but sham and bogus. 22. The sequence of facts as discussed here-in-above, amply demonstrates that the theory of Wakf Al Ul Aulad propounded by the objector, was nothing but sham and bogus. 22. Yet another point which needs to be noted is that the objector claims that excluding the property alleged to be gifted by Abdul Samad to Thatir Fatima, rest of the property was dedicated by Abdul Samad as Wakf Al Ul Aulad. The suit property is only 1/5th part of the whole property, whereas sale-deed was already executed in favour of Smt. Neelu Dhandhiya, the respondent decree holder, by the other four sons of Abdul Samad in the year 2007-08. No step was taken by the objector against the sale deed executed by the other four sons of Abdul Samad till the suit for specific performance was decreed in favour of Smt. Neelu Dhandhiya, the decree holder. The instant objection was raised only after dismissal of SLP of the judgment debtor before the Supreme Court and dismissal of earlier four Objection Petitions by other four persons. The series of Objection Petitions hurled one after another was gross abuse of the judicial procedure. Courts of law are meant for bona fide and genuine disputes and such tactics needs to be deprecated. The other important aspect which cannot be lost sight is the clandestine manner in which stay was obtained from the Wakf Tribunal. The objector initiated a suit along with an application for temporary injunction before the Wakf Tribunal against the judgment debtor and other persons claiming accrual of cause of action on 25.12.2015 (after dismissal of SLP on 7.5.2015) and knowledge of the proceedings before the Executing Court through none else than Advocate Wasim Mohammed Ansari, representing Abdul Sami, the judgment debtor. No resistance was offered by the judgment debtor to such claim of stay. In fact there was no whisper from the judgment debtor about the decree of specific performance obtained by Smt. Neelu Dhandhiya, as affirmed by the Supreme Court. If such facts were disclosed, the Wakf Tribunal would have made the decree holder, Smt. Neelu Dhandhiya, party to such proceedings. But in such eventuality, the game-plan could have failed and as such by playing fraud upon the Tribunal, suppressing such material facts, an order procured behind the back of the present decree holder, is insignificant to eclipse the right, title and interest of the decree holder. But in such eventuality, the game-plan could have failed and as such by playing fraud upon the Tribunal, suppressing such material facts, an order procured behind the back of the present decree holder, is insignificant to eclipse the right, title and interest of the decree holder. Rather such course of action cements the connivance of the objector with the judgment debtor and it becomes as clear as day that the Objection Petition was frivolous, vexatious, with no substance and filed with an ulterior motive and the Executing court was justified in dismissing the same with costs. 23. Insofar as the contention of appellant that the Executing court decided matters which fell within the jurisdiction of Wakf Tribunal, and thus the impugned order is bad in law, is also without any force. The Executing court has not assumed the jurisdiction of the Wakf Tribunal but rather, noting the obvious hollowness in the proceedings initiated by the objector before the Tribunal, aptly opined upon the falsity of the claim raised by the objector. It is settled principle that fraud vitiates entire proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex court in Meghmala & Others v. G. Narasimha Reddy & Others (2010) 8 SCC 383 , has held as under : "28. It is settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an order/office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." (Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath) AIR 1994 SC 853 . In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay 1956 All. E.R. 341, the Court observed without equivocation that : (QB p.712) "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." 29. In A.P. State Financial Corpn. v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills AIR 1994 SC 2151 , and State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu (1994) 2 SCC 481 , this Court observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. "Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law." 30. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. "Equity is always known to defend the law from crafty evasions and new subtleties invented to evade law." 30. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. AIR 1992 SC 1555 , it has been held as under: "20. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. 31. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh AIR 2000 SC 1165 , this Court observed that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. 32. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud. [See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655 ; Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 100; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325; State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar (2007) 1 SCC 80 ; Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. Coal Tar Refining Co. AIR 2007 SC 2798 ; and Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar (2009) 8 SCC 751 .] 33. Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. [Vide Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1963 SC 1572 ; Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550 ; State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao AIR 2005 SC 3110 ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481; and Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir (2008) 13 SCC 170 .] 34. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (Vide S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu (supra); Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust AIR 1996 SC 2202 ; Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi (2003) 8 SCC 319 ; Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal AIR 2002 SC 33 ; Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School & Intermediate Education AIR 2003 SC 4628 and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. AIR 2004 SC 2836 .] 35. In Kinch v. Walcott 1929 AC 482, it has been held that : "...mere constructive fraud is not, at all events after long delay, sufficient but such a judgment will not be set aside upon mere proof that the judgment was obtained by perjury." Thus, detection/discovery of constructive fraud at a much belated stage may not be sufficient to set aside the judgment procured by perjury. 36. From the above, it is evident that even in judicial proceedings, once a fraud is proved, all advantages gained by playing fraud can be taken away. In such an eventuality the questions of non-executing of the statutory remedies or statutory bars like doctrine of res judicata are not attracted. Suppression of any material fact/document amounts to a fraud on the court. Every court has an inherent power to recall its own order obtained by fraud as the order so obtained is non est." 24. The ratio laid down in the above case squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and the appellant cannot gain any advantage on account of the stay order procured by playing fraud upon the Wakf Tribunal. 25. The ratio laid down in the above case squarely applies to the facts of the instant case and the appellant cannot gain any advantage on account of the stay order procured by playing fraud upon the Wakf Tribunal. 25. Looking from another angle, the objection raised by the appellant about lack of jurisdiction of the Executing court in scrutinising the case set up in the Objection Petition, being self destructive, deserves to be rejected. The appellant on the basis of same very proceedings before the Wakf Tribunal, filed Objection Petition before the Executing court and when the Executing court after scrutinising and critically appreciating the case set up by the objector, saw the apparent falsity and collusive nature of the case, the appellant claims that the Executing court lacks jurisdiction to enquire into such facts. How can a person who has excited the jurisdiction of a court on a set of facts preclude, the court from scrutinising the veracity of the same set of facts. No explanation is tendered by the appellant as to why he did not make the decree holder a party in the suit before the Wakf Tribunal. The reason is obvious, for if such approach was adopted, then the decree holder would have apprised the Tribunal of the entire true state of affairs and in such a scenario obtaining of a stay order from the Tribunal was not a possibility. The facts speak for themselves, and this court does not find any fault with the findings arrived at by the Executing court. 26. Before concluding, it would be apt to discuss the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant. 26.1 In Sameer Singh v. Abdul Rab (supra) the Supreme Court has laid down that even the transferee Executing court has jurisdiction to adjudication all questions pertaining to right, title or interest of parties in property and such jurisdiction includes claim of a stranger, dispossessed or apprehending dispossesion. 26.2 In Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra) it was held that once a Wakf, is always a Wakf. 26.3 In Balraj Singh & Another v. Ajit Singh (supra) it was held that an appeal is maintainable against dismissal of an objection petition. 26.2 In Sayyed Ali v. A.P. Wakf Board, Hyderabad (supra) it was held that once a Wakf, is always a Wakf. 26.3 In Balraj Singh & Another v. Ajit Singh (supra) it was held that an appeal is maintainable against dismissal of an objection petition. 26.4 In Jeet Mohammed v. Jatinder Kaur (supra) it was held that any person who professes Islam is a person interested in management of Wakf and has right to raise dispute if such Wakf properties is intended to be sold. 26.5 In Hazi Abdul Gafar v. Suraj Mal (supra) this court has appreciated the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal. 26.6 In Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (supra) it was held that all questions raised by objector has to be comprehensively considered on merits. 26.7 In Babulal v. Raj Kumar (supra) it was held that adjudication was required to be conducted under Order 21, Rule 98 CPC. 26.8 In Smt. Sarita Gupta v. Sudhir Jaju (supra) it was held that an objector is entitled to get his right determined under R. 35(2). 26.9 In Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal (supra) it was held that stranger can get his claim adjudicated even prior to loosing possession to decree holder. 26.10 In Shreenath & Another v. Rajesh (supra) it was held that third party who was holding independent right, can object to the execution of decree. 27. There cannot be any quarrel about the legal proposition laid down in the above judicial precedents. Maintainability of the instant appeal is not in question, neither it is debated that adjudication of Objection Petition of the appellant was not warranted. The Executing court has not declined to adjudicate the Objection Petition of the appellant. The Executing Court has critically examined the pleadings, documents and earlier orders/judgments and reached to a conclusion and no illegality can be assigned in, not only such approach being adopted by the Executing court, but the conclusions drawn therein. Reasons are mentioned hereinbefore and for the sake of brevity they are not repeated herein. 28. A vital fact which has emerged and admitted by the learned counsel for the parties is that the decree holder has already obtained possession of the entire property. Reasons are mentioned hereinbefore and for the sake of brevity they are not repeated herein. 28. A vital fact which has emerged and admitted by the learned counsel for the parties is that the decree holder has already obtained possession of the entire property. Keeping in view such fact, as also the distinction between forgery committed in court records and forgery already committed in private documents later-on produced in court, and in the interest of justice, this court is of the opinion that lodging of FIR by the court is not warranted, as such right is vested in the decree holder. As such, while order of dismissal of the Objection Petition by the Executing court is sustained, direction as to lodging of FIR by the court is modified. The decree holder shall have the liberty to initiate any criminal proceedings including lodging of an FIR in accordance with law, which if undertaken, shall be investigated by the concerned authorities expeditiously and in accordance with law. 29. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with the observations made here in above. No order as to costs.