CRP 283/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. R.K. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appe ars for the other respondents. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the order dated 22nd June, 2009 passed by the learned Executing Court in Title E xecution Case No.10/2007, whereby and where-under the petition dated 21st May, 2 009 (Petition No.799/2009) filed by the present petitioner seeking restoration o f the possession of the property in question has been dismissed. The said application has been filed under Order 21 Rule 99 of the CPC complaining about the dispossession. The order passed on such application is a decree within the meaning of Order 21 Rule 103 of the CPC. That being the position, an appeal lies. The petitioner has not filed the appeal, which is provided under the CPC . In view of the above, this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not entertained. The petitioner may file the appea l before the appropriate Court, if so advised, with an application seeking condo nation of delay. In the event, such an appeal together with an application seek ing condonation of delay is filed, the learned Court below shall take into consi deration the fact that the petitioner has approach the wrong forum and pass nece ssary order on the application seeking condonation of delay and thereafter, cons equent upon the order that may be passed, take up the appeal for consideration. It is needless to say that while passing any order in such proceeding, the part ies shall be heard. The revision petition is accordingly closed. No cost.