ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the learned Executing Court refused to frame issue/s and to take evidence for deciding the objections raised under Order 21 Rule 58, 59 and 105 CPC. 2. Facts of the case, as per petitioners, are that before 2011, the respondent-judgment debtor was the owner of the suit shop. On 14.7.2011, the judgment debtor took a loan from Dena Bank, Ambabadi Branch, Jaipur by mortgaging the shop to it vide hypothication agreement dated 14.7.2011. Since the judgment debtor did not pay the loan amount due to the bank, the bank attached the shop in the year 2018. The bank issued an auction notice for sale of the shop by e-auction. Thereafter vide registered sale deed dated 10.9.2018, the shop was purchased by the petitioners at the penultimate stage i.e. just before the shop was about to be sold by e-auction, by paying Rs. 42,75,000/- to the bank in the loan account of the judgment debtor. Thereafter the petitioners obtained the documents from the bank and took physical possession of the shop and since then, they are doing their business therefrom. On 18.12.2018, an order of attachment of the shop issued under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC was affixed on it. Upon making enquiries, the petitioners came to know that an order dated 26.11.2018 for attachment of the shop in question was issued by the Addl. District Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in pursuance of the execution of decree dated 25.1.2016 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 4 (North West), Rohini, Distt. Court, Delhi against the judgment debtor and in favour of the decree holder respondent in a suit for recovery of money, which was transferred to the Executing Court for execution. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an application under Order 21 Rule 58, 59 and 105 readwith Section 151 CPC raising objection against the attachment proceedings. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 24.11.2019 refused to frame issue and to take evidence for deciding the objections raised under Order 21 Rule 58, 59 and 105 CPC. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the shop in question. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 24.11.2019 refused to frame issue and to take evidence for deciding the objections raised under Order 21 Rule 58, 59 and 105 CPC. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the bonafide purchasers of the shop in question. Learned executing court before proceeding further in the matter, was required to frame issues regarding the objections raised by the petitioners and after taking evidence thereon, ought to have decided the objections. He further submits that the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order refusing to frame issue and taking evidence for deciding the objections, relied on the provisions of Order 21 Rule 102 CPC, but the said provision is not applicable in the instant case for the reason that the said provision applies only in the case of immovable property, but in the instant case decree passed was neither for possession of immovable property nor for dispossession of any person therefrom. However the learned executing court has utterly failed to consider this aspect of the matter. On this count, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maya Devi Vs. Lalta Prasad reported in (2015) 5 SCC 588 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgments, has held that framing of issues and recording of evidence in execution proceedings is not essential in each case. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that recording of evidence can neither be asked as a matter of right nor can the same be ordered as a matter of course. 6. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Chimanaram Mantri Trust & Ors., reported in (2017) 3 DNJ 1384 , particularly para 23, 24, 25, 30, 32 and 37, which read as under:- “23. 6. To substantiate his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Smt. Shanti Devi & Ors. Vs. Chimanaram Mantri Trust & Ors., reported in (2017) 3 DNJ 1384 , particularly para 23, 24, 25, 30, 32 and 37, which read as under:- “23. On careful analysis of the case laws referred above, this Court finds that none of the authorities cited by counsel for the petitioners enunciates that the recording of evidence and framing of issues is prerequisite for deciding an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code or the same can be claimed as a matter of right. 24. Adverting to the judgments cited by Mr. Manish Shishodia, this Court has gone through the judgment of Silverline Forum Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust & Anr., reported in (1998) 3 SCC p.723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.14 of the report has held that the adjudication under Order 21, Rule 97 of Civil Procedure Code does not contemplate detailed enquiry or collection of evidence. The Court can make adjudication on admitted facts or even on the basis of averments made by the resister; of course, the Court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination, if the Court deems necessary. For the sake of ready reference, para 14 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “14. It is clear that the executing court can decide whether the resister or obstructor 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. The court can make adjudication on admitted facts or even on the averments made by the resister. Of course the court can direct the parties to adduce evidence for such determination if the court deems it necessary.” 25. A careful reading of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that recording of evidence is not necessary in each case. The Court in a given case, if deemed necessary, can direct the parties to adduce evidence. (emphasis supplied by me) 30. A careful reading of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that recording of evidence is not necessary in each case. The Court in a given case, if deemed necessary, can direct the parties to adduce evidence. (emphasis supplied by me) 30. On a careful and comprehensive reading of the judgment cited by rival counsels, this Court has discerned that framing of issues and recording of evidence in execution proceedings is not essential in each case. As far as framing of issues is concerned, the Courts can frame point of determination but such determination may or may not require recording of the evidence. If the executing Court, on the basis of material available on record, coupled with the pleadings of the parties, feels that recording of evidence or summoning of witness is needed, the same can be recorded. But, for that purpose, the applicant has to clearly indicate in his application, the reasons necessitating such order and relevance of the evidence to be recorded. Recording of evidence can neither be asked as a matter of right nor can the same be ordered as a matter of course. The applicant has to assert and give cogent reasons indicating therein the nature of dispute, the assertion of the parties and the facts which are required to be proved by oral evidence. 32. In view of the factual backdrop of the case, particularly when on the basis of the documentary evidence as placed by the petitioners, if the trial court has come to a conclusion that recording of evidence and framing of issues is not necessary, no fault can be found in the order impugned. 37. The Executing Court after considering the factual matrix obtaining in the execution proceedings, has reached to a conclusion that neither framing of the issues nor recording of the evidence is required, this Court does not feel inclined to interfere in such discretionary order, in exercise of its otherwise discretionary – supervisory jurisdiction, being guided by the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and this Court.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the objections of the petitioners are not maintainable. Framing of issue and recording of evidence in each case is not necessary. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the objections of the petitioners are not maintainable. Framing of issue and recording of evidence in each case is not necessary. The petitioners are stranger to the attachment proceedings and the petitioners have resorted to the said provisions just to prolong and obstruct the execution of the decree, which is not permissible under the law. He further submits that the decree was passed on 25.1.2016, whereas the petitioners purchased the property in auction on 10.9.2018. 8. As per learned counsel for the respondents, even otherwise, an immovable property cannot be transferred by way of sale agreement. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Prem Singh & Ors. Vs. Amari Devi (D) through Her LRs & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4538/2019; decided on 23.4.2019). 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the learned court below had ample powers to decide the mode of execution for the property in question, for which the decree was already passed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The facts of the case however, clearly point out that the petitioners’ insistence on framing of issues to decide their objections was not appropriate in the given facts and circumstances. 11. Argument of Mr. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 102 CPC do not apply in this case, is not tenable for the reason that in the facts of the case, framing of issue/s and leading evidence is not required. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 10.9.2018 i.e. much after the passing of the decree. In the given facts and circumstances, the learned executing court has rightly refused to frame issue and to lead evidence for deciding the objections under Order 21 Rule 58, 59, 105 CPC. 12. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 10.9.2018 i.e. much after the passing of the decree. In the given facts and circumstances, the learned executing court has rightly refused to frame issue and to lead evidence for deciding the objections under Order 21 Rule 58, 59, 105 CPC. 12. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case for the reason that in the said case, power of attorney was executed before passing the decree, but in the instant case, the petitioners purchased the property after passing of the decree. 13. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and the learned Executing Court is found to have rightly exercised jurisdiction vested in it. 14. In the light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Stay Application also stands dismissed.