The court has discretion in allowing cross-examination in proceedings under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC, and must consider the sufficiency of grounds and the bona fides of the application.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties finally on these two revision petitions.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff non-petitioner obtained decree for eviction against one Mohd. Hanif , now deceased for eviction from the suit premises on 20-1-98. The appeal filed ‘by deceased Mohd. Hanif was dismissed by the appellate Court on 25-1-200 1. The execution petition was submitted by non-petitioner No. 1 in which present petitioner Smt. Jaharoon. who is daughter ofjudgment-debtor, submitted an objection petition under Order 21, Rule 97. CPC stating therein that the suit premises was originally let out to Fateh Mohd. The father of the petitioner and judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif , Fateh Mohd. expired and during the life time of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner was also residing with Fateh Mohd. After the death of Fateh Mohd. the petitioner is residing with his brother judgment-debtor Mohd. Hanif in the suit premises. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, she became tenant being heir of original tenant Fateh Mohd. and there is no decree for eviction against the petitioner. Despite this fact, the non-petitioner No. 1 decree-holder wants to evict the petitioner from the suit premises in execution of the decree obtained against the non-petitioner Mohd. Hanif The petitioner submitted number of affidavits in support of her application along with her own affidavit.

3. The non-petitioner No. 1 contested the application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC by filing reply and also submitted affidavits of number of persons.

4. In the execution Court, the petitioner-objector submitted an Explication under Order 19, Rule 2 CPC and prayed that she may be permitted to cross-examine the deponents, who have filed the affidavits in support of the case of the non-petitioner No. 1 decree-holder. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 18th April, 2002 on the ground that application under Order 19, Rule 2, CPC to cross-examine the deponent was submitted at the stage after completion of arguments on application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC of learned counsel for the objector, but even after counsel for the decree-holder also concluded his

arguments and learned counsel for the objector was to advance rejoinder arguments. It was also observed by the executing Court that affidavits were filed on 7-2-2002 and after arguing on application under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC itself , this application had been filed on 8th March, 2002. Therefore, the Court below found that the application is mala fidely filed to delay the proceedings. The executing Court also observed that in the opinion of the executing Court, it is not a fit case for granting permission for cross-examination of the deponents, who filed the affidavits in support of the case of the decree-holder.

5. Learned counsellor the petitioner vehemently submitted that in a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97, ‘CPC, all the rights, even the title of the parties are decided. Proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC is just akin to the proceedings of a civil suit and, therefore, the executing Court should not have dismissed the application under Order 19 Rule 2, CPC. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order passed under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC is appealable order and, therefore, the Court should have permitted the petitioner to cross-examine the deponents of the non-petitioner No. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Lookman vs. Indra Singh (S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1298/200 1) decided on 4th April, 2002 [reported in 2002 (3) Raj LR 540) wherein this Court held that the Court is under obligation to pass an appropriate order giving cogent reasons while allowing or rejecting the application for calling the deponent for cross-examination.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Silverli