IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 688 OF 2009 SHRI MOHAN GOPALKRISHNA SAVOIKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI JAMES PEGEOT FARIA AND 8 ORS. ... Respondent Mr. N.k. Sawaikar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitin N. Sardessai, Advocate for the respodnent no.1. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 15th July, 2010 P.C. Heard. Petitioner herein is the decree holder in execution application no. 5/2002. 2. The executing Court by order dated 2.3.2009 directed the judgment debtor to remove mud bricks piled one over the other which are put up to a height of 1 cubit and which is near the western bagela etc. The said order was made on an application filed by the decree holder, under Order 21, Rule 32. 3. Against the said order the judgment debtor preferred an appeal to the District Court and the learned District Court-I, by his order dated 21.8.2009 set aside the order of executing Court dated 2.3.2009. 4. In short, the contention of the decree holder is that there was no appeal provided to the District Court against the order of executing court dated 2.3.2009 by virtue of section 104 read with Order 43 C.P.C., as amended. A perusal of the said provisions shows that no appeal is provided against an order of executing Court, passed in terms of Order 21 Rule 32. The contention needs to be accepted. There cannot be an appeal unless it is provided for. Right of appeal is always a creature of statute. As a result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Order dated 21.8.2009 is hereby set aside with no order as to costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. vn