JUDGMENT : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this Court earlier in S.B. Execution First Appeal No. 02/2016 dated 22.03.2017 set aside the earlier order passed by the executing court dated 09.02.2016, whereby the objections raised by the appellant were rejected and further directed the executing court to provide reasonable and short opportunity to both the sides for producing the documents upon which they want to rely and to decide the application/objections afresh. It is submitted that after the aforesaid order, the appellant again submitted a detailed application alongwith the documents and also moved an application under Section 151 CPC seeking an interim order. However, while deciding the application under Section 151 CPC, the executing court again rejected the objections without giving any opportunity to the appellant to prove his case. The original documents which the appellant would have exhibited in terms of the objections raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were not allowed to be exhibited and merely on the basis of the application which has been filed alongwith the xerox copies of the documents, the proceedings were closed and the objections were rejected. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that before the executing court, the respondent-Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf has not even produced the original decree passed in their favour dated 30.01.1971 which was passed by this Court in D.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 32/1958. It is submitted that the application for seeking execution mentions different boundaries other than what was mentioned in the decree dated 30.01.1971. Learned counsel has passed on the certified copy of the original judgment and decree passed by this Court to submit that the original boundaries mentioned in the decree also mention that the appellant's property is on the west side of the Kabristan, which was required to be kept intact in the decree. Learned counsel submits that in the application moved before the concerned executing court, the boundaries which have been mentioned in the application are different. He submits that the order passed by the learned executing court, therefore, does not take into consideration the submissions as raised by the appellant and as directed by this Court earlier. 2. Learned counsel submits that in the application moved before the concerned executing court, the boundaries which have been mentioned in the application are different. He submits that the order passed by the learned executing court, therefore, does not take into consideration the submissions as raised by the appellant and as directed by this Court earlier. 2. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf submits that the execution proceedings are pending since 1982 and relate to a decree passed with regard to properties of the Waqf Board. He also submits that the earlier execution proceedings has also been filed against one Daya Ram in relation to a decree passed against him. Learned counsel submits that the property has been earmarked in a map which has been duly certified by the State Government, Urban Development and Housing Department, and by the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and marked as property of the Waqf Board. The judgment and decree could not be executed because of frivolous objections being raised from time to time. Learned counsel further submits that the present objectors are actually raising objections at the behest of one Daya Ram who earlier lost in the proceedings all the way upto this High Court in relation to the execution of the decree passed against him and in favour of Waqf Board. It is submitted that before the executing Court, the objectors have stated that they have no interest in common with the interest of Daya Ram. However, in separate proceedings it has been stated by the objector-appellant that he had handed over his part of property to Daya Ram. Thus, contrary stand has been taken in different proceedings by the appellant. Learned counsel has also asked this Court to go through the certified copy of the suit filed by the appellant separately wherein such stand has been taken. Learned counsel has taken this Court to various orders passed by this Court in relation to the question regarding the earmarking of the land and submits that earlier in proceedings relating to Daya Ram, the Sale Amin had given a report on the warrant of possession that the present boundaries were not matching with the boundaries of the land indicated in the decree dated 19.04.1961. The High Court after having gone through the decree held that the property as mentioned in the decree dated 19.04.1961 was required to be executed as per the decree and the objections raised by the objector therein were rejected. It was also held as under:- "So far as the amendment in the boundaries of the decree is concerned, admittedly the suit was filed in the year 1957, the decree was passed in the year 1961 and almost 60 years have passed since the suit was instituted and, therefore, there is bound to be change in the boundaries as many new constructions etc. might have cropped up now, where there were no such constructions and many existing constructions might have been altered and, therefore, the Sale Amin found the boundaries indicated in the warrant of possession as not matching with the present boundaries and, therefore, the trial court was justified in ordering bringing the warrant of possession in sync with the present boundaries and no exception can be taken to the said order of the executing court." Learned counsel further submits that the present appellant has remain silent with regard to the decree and has never raised any objections earlier. The property is in the main market of Jodhpur and it was very well known to the appellant about the decree having been passed in favour of Waqf Board. It is submitted that the decree has been passed in the representative suit and a presumption has to be drawn that it was in knowledge of the appellant with regard to the passing of the judgment and decree. Therefore, he submits that no interference is called for in the order passed by the executing court. Learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf submits that the judgment of Apex Court was relied upon by the trial court for not allowing the appellant to lead the evidence in this regard. He has taken this Court to Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust and another reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1754. 3. Admit. 4. So far as the other respondents in the present appeal are concerned, they are formal parties. 5. Both the counsels agree that the matter be decided at this stage. 6. He has taken this Court to Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajiv Trust and another reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1754. 3. Admit. 4. So far as the other respondents in the present appeal are concerned, they are formal parties. 5. Both the counsels agree that the matter be decided at this stage. 6. I have heard and noted the submissions as above, find that the issue regarding the boundaries of the Kabristan is main aspect which requires to be adjudicated by the executing court before the decree can be satisfied. The boundaries as mentioned in the decree dated 30.01.1971 are mentioned as under: ^^tks/kiqj 'kgj esa lkstfr;k njoktk ds ckfgj ckjh ds ikl vgkrk can gSA ¼dcfjLrku cs:u lkstfr;k njoktk½ ¼1½ dcfjLrku ds mRrj esa 'kgj iuk dksV gSA ¼2½ dcfjLrku ds nf{k.k esa lkstfr;k xsV ls foUMe vLirky dh rjQ tkus okyh lM+d gSA ¼3½ dcfjLrku ds mxq.k esa lkstfr;k xsV dh ckjh dk jkLrk gSA ¼4½ dcfjLrku ds vkFkq.k esa iafMr lkseukFk th dk uksgjk gSA** 7. I have looked at the application moved by the Waqf Board wherein the respondents have given the Schedule of the boundaries of the properties for which they claimed their possession in terms of the decree, which reads as under: ^^gnwn %& iwoZ esa & lkstrh xsV dh ckjh dk jkLrkA if'pe esa & iafMr lkseukFk ,oa rstukjk;.k dkd dh tehuA mRrj esa & oDQ cksMZ dh [kqyh tehu ftldk dCtk lkfcdk esa fn;k tk pqdk gSA nf{k.k esa & lkstrh xsV ls egkRek xka/kh vLirky tkus okyh lM+d gSA uksV %& ¼1½ bl tehu esa ls ,d ckM+k tks n;kjke ds dCts esa Fkk ¼cgSfl;r fdjk;snkj uus'kkg½ dk dCtk fMØhnkj dks fnyok;k tk pqdkA vr% cdk;k tehu dk dCtk fnyok;k tkosA ¼2½ fd fooknxzLr tehu dk ckM+k uaŒ 4 Jh ekukjke pkS/kjh ds dCts esa Fkk ftldk dCtk Hkh fMØhnkj dks Jh ekukjke pkS/kjh ls ÁkIr gks pqdk gSA ¼3½ fd ckM+k uaŒ 9 Jh nksus [kka ds dCts esa Fkk ftldk dCtk Hkh fMØhnkj dks fey pqdk gS vkSj fMØhnkj us ml ij nqdkus cuk nh gSaA blfy, bl ckM+s dk dCtk fnykus dks Hkh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA** 8. The original record was called for and it is noticed that the original judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the case of Regular First Appeal No. 32/1958 All Muslims of Jodhpur Vs. The original record was called for and it is noticed that the original judgment and decree passed by the High Court in the case of Regular First Appeal No. 32/1958 All Muslims of Jodhpur Vs. His Highness The Maharaja Saheb of Jodhpur Shri Gaj Singhji & Ors., has not been placed on record. 9. It is trite law that the execution under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC would be for the decree passed and finalized and the boundaries mentioned therein. Apparently, the boundaries mentioned in the application appear to be different from that of the original decree passed. The concerned executing court was therefore, required to have asked for placing on record the original decree, as passed by the High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 32/1958, on 30.01.1971. The concerned court was therefore, required to factually record after examining the evidence whether the boundaries as mentioned in the decree of this Court and the boundaries mentioned in the application moved before it were same or not. These are factual aspects and once someone raises objections regarding the boundaries, a finding of fact is required to be given by the concerned executing court. 10. This Court notices that the learned executing court had earlier rejected the objections raised by the appellant which were set aside by this Court vide its judgment dated 22.03.2017 and passed following order: 22. "In view of above, the order dated 09.02.2016 is quashed and set aside with direction to the Executing Court to provide reasonable and short opportunity to both the sides for producing the documents upon which they want to rely and to decide the application/objections afresh. It is also pertinent to mention here that since the matter is pending since long, it will be desirable that the application moved by the objector be decided as expeditiously as possible and at the most, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Registry is directed to sent the record back, if requisitioned, to the court concerned at the earliest. The interim order dated 15.03.2016 comes to an end alongwith disposal of this appeal. However, it is made clear that the executing court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the cased in respect of the proceedings relating to execution of the decree till the objections are decided. The interim order dated 15.03.2016 comes to an end alongwith disposal of this appeal. However, it is made clear that the executing court will be at liberty to pass appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the cased in respect of the proceedings relating to execution of the decree till the objections are decided. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the Executing Court on 30.03.2017. With the above direction, the appeal stands disposed off accordingly." 11. When this Court directs that both the sides shall produce documents upon which the application/objections are required to be decided, it clearly means that the documents are to be produced as exhibit and piece of evidence which are to be taken on record and objections in that regard may be taken from both the parties. The cursory manner in which, the order has been passed by the executing court which has failed to take into consideration, the import of documents and the proof of the documents without leading evidence, was neither the intention nor the direction of this Court. 12. I have considered the submissions and find that each case is required to be examined on its own facts. The case before the Apex Court in Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. (supra) was of a subtenant whereas the present is a case where as per the original decree, the boundaries of the Kabristan is next to the objector's property and the objector is submitting his objections to limit the execution of decree in terms of the boundaries mentioned therein alone and not to include his part of the property. This aspect required evidence of both the sides to prove whether the property of the objector is in any manner coming in the four corners of the property of the Waqf Board or not. For this purpose, the executing court ought to have given chance to both the parties and thereafter, passed an appropriate order. The executing court has therefore, to limit itself to the four corners of the order passed by the High Court earlier dated 22.03.2017. However, this Court finds that the executing court has proceeded and examined the maintainability of objections. For this purpose, the executing court ought to have given chance to both the parties and thereafter, passed an appropriate order. The executing court has therefore, to limit itself to the four corners of the order passed by the High Court earlier dated 22.03.2017. However, this Court finds that the executing court has proceeded and examined the maintainability of objections. The said argument which was already raised before this Court by the learned counsel for Waqf Board is not tenable as the present appeal lies against an order passed by the executing court rejecting objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. 13. Having said so, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the dispute relating to the property of Waqf Board can only be taken up under challenge by filing a suit before the Waqf Tribunal in terms of Section 85 of the Waqf Act, 1995. 14. I have considered the submission while it is true that the Apex Court has held that the properties of Waqf Board and dispute relating to Waqf Board can only be examined by the Tribunal which is formed under the Act but in the present case, I find that the nature of the dispute raised by objectors is not relating to the property of the Waqf Board but the boundaries of the properties of the Waqf Board for which they have filed execution proceedings. It would be therefore, examined by the concerned Civil Court as to what are the exact boundaries of the Waqf property of Kabristan as has been decreed in its favour by the High Court in its judgment of 1971 (supra). To this aspect, the executing court where the execution application has been moved by the Waqf Board itself, would be the only court having jurisdiction to examine the objections which may be raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Thus, the objection of learned counsel for the respondents is rejected. 15. In view of the observations made above the executing court is directed to re-examine the objections as per the observations above and decide the same within a period of six months expeditiously. All the submissions raised by learned counsel for the respondents are allowed to be taken up before the concerned executing court, who will examine the same. 16. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.