IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.104 of 2006. Date of decision:27.03.2009. M/s.Himachal Motors …Petitioner. Versus Parminder Lal Dhingra & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Vijay Pandit, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The Judgment Debtor has preferred this revision petition against the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the review petition filed by the Judgment Debtors in proceedings under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is undisputed that the Decree Holders were granted a decree for possession of the suit property in Civil Suit No.109 of 1977 on 31.12.1977 which decree was affirmed by this Court on 29th July, 1994, as the appeal preferred by the Judgment Debtor 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 was dismissed with costs and this judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Judgment Debtor preferred an application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17.4.1995 praying therein that they be granted permission to remove the machinery from the suit premises with the help of experts etc. In reply to this petition, the Decree Holders submitted that the possession of the suit premises had already been taken over by them through the process of Court. A specific averment was made that the Judgment Debtor resisted delivery of possession where-after the Decree Holders were forced to take assistance of the Court for breaking open the locks etc. The possession of the premises, pursuant to the Court order was handed over by the bailiff. On 30.11.1999 the learned Court dismissed the application holding that since the main execution petition has been disposed of, the application was not maintainable and it was accordingly rejected. Not being satisfied by this order, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the Judgment Debtor praying for recalling of the order passed by the learned executing Court dismissing the application under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Court found that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. It was held that the order was appealable and that was also a ground for refusing the review. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the Judgment Debtor submits that the application is to be treated independently irrespective of the fact whether execution proceedings are pending or not. He also submits that the Court was in patent error in allowing the Decree Holder to appropriate even that which was not the subject matter of the decree. The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder cannot be accepted. The objection, if any, was to be raised at the time when delivery of the property was delivered to the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor cannot litigate in piecemeal. No detail of machinery has been given nor has it been proved on record as to whether the alleged machinery was given on supurdari either to the Bailiff or to any other person. So far as exercising the powers of review are concerned, I am in agreement with the learned Court below that the case is not covered by Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other observation made by the learned Court below that an order under Order 21 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is appealable, does not require any interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. March 27, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.