IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 4 of 2008 Date of Decision: 15.5.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Devi Singh & anr. ….. Petitioners Versus Lakshman Singh … Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioners : Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, passed in CMA No.15 of 2006, decided on 25.8.2007, whereby he has allowed the execution petition filed by the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the decree holder. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the decree holder obtained a decree against the present petitioners, hereinafter referred to as the Judgment debtors, in Civil Suit No. 227/1999. It is not necessary to give detailed facts of the case in view of the short controversy which lies before this Court. - 2 - The decree holder filed an Execution Petition No. 8-x/2002 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Chachiot at Gohar, District Mandi, HP which was dismissed on 22.8.2006. An appeal was filed against the same which has been allowed by the impugned order. The main contention of Shri G.R.Palsra learned counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors is that no appeal lies against an order dismissing an execution petition filed under Order 21 rule 32 and the only remedy, if any, available to the decree holder was to file a revision petition. An appeal against an order passed by a Court lies only under Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Order 43 thereof. The decree holder/respondent has failed to point out that the order passed by the learned trial court dismissing the execution petition was appealable either under Section 104 or under Order 41 of the CPC. It is, therefore, apparent that the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or pass an order thereon. The petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that no appeal lay against the order dismissing the execution petition. The decree holder may take out appropriate proceedings in - 3 - accordance with law to challenge the order of the executing Court. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. May 15, 2008 ( Deepak Gupta ), J. s.