IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 66 OF 2010 MR. CONSTANCY FERNANDES ALIAS KANY JOHN FERNANDES AND ANR., REP. BY P.O.A. MR. WALTER B. FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus ANTHONY J. FERNANDES (DECEASED) AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. S. R. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin N. Sardessai, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th August, 2010 P.C.: Heard. 2. There was consent decree between both the parties passed in Regular Civil Suit No.364/1998/B/D dated 6/02/2006. 3. The respondents herein were the decree holders. They applied for execution vide application no.23/06/D. Application for execution came to be dismissed by order dated 20/06/2009. The respondents filed an appeal before the District Court. The petitioners/judgment debtors raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable. That objection came to be decided by the learned Adhoc District Judge vide his order dated 24/10/2009 impugned in this Writ Petition. 4. Counsel on behalf of the petitioners/Judgment Debtors refers to Order 43, CPC and submits that Order 43 does not provide for an appeal against an order dismissing an execution application and, therefore, the appeal was clearly not maintainable. Counsel on behalf of the respondents submits that the case at hand is one of resistance or obstruction by the Judgment Debtors to the execution of the decree in terms Order 21, Rule 97 and which, in terms of Rule 103 has got to be treated as a decree against which an appeal was maintainable. 5. I am unable to accept this submission of the respondents. In fact there is no application and no adjudication of any application purported to have been filed by the Decree Holders against any obstructions caused by the Judgment Debtors. This is a case where the application for execution has been dismissed by the learned trial Court. As rightly pointed out by learned advocate Shri Rivonkar, a dismissal of an execution application is not a matter which can be appealed from, in terms of Order 43 CPC. There cannot be an appeal unless it is specifically provided for. 6. In the circumstances therefore the learned Adhoc District Judge was not right in entertaining the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal filed by the respondents was clearly not maintainable. 7. Consequently, this Writ Petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby set aside. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH