tSf THEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATURECHHATriSOAKH ATBILASPUR ^ M.C.A.NO.(^/ 2005 ^ APPELtANTB APPLICANTS fec.. ^^^£^st .<^./'w M-y ""V . •• ^.^;. VERSUS RESPONDENTS PLAmTJFF DECREEHETOLDER &KFEN1>ANTS JUDGMENT DEBTORS y Smt. Sunita Chhabada, Aged about 41 years, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Chhabada, R/o Telephone Excliange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) Kunal Chhabada, Aged about 16 years, S/o Sunil Kumar Chhabada, Minor Through Guardian Moflier Smt. Sunita Chhabada, R/o Telephone Exchange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) Kapil Chhabada, Aged about 14, S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Chhabada Minor Through Guardian Mother Smt. Sunita Chhabada, R/o Telephone Exchange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, Bilasp'ar (C.G.) Bank of India, ThrQugh-Branch Managex Branch office Dayalband, Biiaspur Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Rajesh Kumar Chhabada, aged about 45 years? S/o Shri Omprakash Chhabada, Occupation- Business R/o Behind Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Di«tt; Bilaspur: ^:-^^^-=;-^- iktTCTION PURCHASER ^- Omprakash Chhabadda, ^ aged abayt 69 years ^Occupation-Business R/o Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur. y-:} 'r: Sanjay Agrwal, Aged about 33 years, S/o Late Shri Rainchandra Agrw^al, R/o Kranti Nagar Bilaspur. Tahsil and Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) ft • w-"-'" APPEAI. UNDER SECTION 104 RED WITff Om>ER^ RUtE 1 OF THEXX^DB OF CR^I, PROCEDXTRE 1908. -1K»< ^^ XI-HC-78 ^w| ^l^lc'l*^, VTi1xi<i<s, Riom^x ^-^-i^T^/^- *ii*iwiap'nis ^200 OT^^T^rf^wp Wff3II^?T^:rtq! >v <^ 9ff^?TiRq?(yit3<si<s) ?T<TTWF^[f^T 3P^5T cbl«i^T1^l^c<('<ffec& ><Kn^ix ^ 3lKi4l 3i1^9T 27-1-2006 Mr. V.D.Bajpai, Senior Advocafe witli Mr. R,K,Tiwad and Mr. A.P.Dul^ey, counsel for fhe appellants, Mr. Rajeev Bhai|at, counsel for respondent No.3, Oniprakash Ch]|tabada, Mr. Saiijay Ku, ^grawal, counsel for I'espondent No,4, Sanjay Agrawal.| None for respon^lents No.l and 2. Heai'd on adinis don aad M.(C.)P.No. 1542/2005. Durmg tlie pen|d.ency of the Execution Case No,13- B/2000 (Bank of India, tli| Suiiil Kum.ar CIihabada aa| present appeUaats filed aa 98, 101, 102 aad 103 ofthe] has been dismissed by fhe Q 2005. Aggneved by that 5 decree holder vs. M/s Oinprakash d others, tlie judgiaent debtors), the ^ppMcation under Order 21 Rules 97, 1 Code of Civil Procedure and the sam.e [ourt vide rmpzigued order dated 13-9- >rder, the appeUants have filed tliis appeal under Section 104 re^d'wifh Order 43 Rule 1 oftheCode.of CivU Procedure. Order 43 $ule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure contaias a Mst of orders agaii^ provision of Section 104 Admittedly, the mipugned o| From. bare readuig of Sectior^ st which ao. appeal shall Ue under the of tlie Code of Civil Procedure. t-der does not find place ia fhat list, 104 ofthe Code ofCivU Procedure, it is also evident fhat, aay o^der passed on flie application filed under Order 21 RT.UCS 97, 98, Procedure does not come wii 101, 102 and 103 oftiie Code ofCivil ±.in. the aiiibit of Sectiou 104 of fhe ^S) XI-HC-78 NJ-CCI ^WI^, U>-alY1-IO, IqrtW^ (Lf^<U0. {2-5^/oj *1B*IWI ^1TI'?P W^200 3TI^^tq?T Rlicp ^T8IT3n^5Tfp+iicp t 9ff^9TtRq? (i^tgcR?) ^RTTW ^lf^T 3T1^9T CoUe Under0rder21 tlie person, who obsttTicts aad the Court. has right to onler accordnigly, Those of Order 21 Rule 103 of the iaipugned order is a decree Section 96 of the Gode of Civil decree an order uncler Sectioli The appeUaiits placed reUaa| vs. Manssal Jiwaialal and Ftule 97 offheCode ofCivU Procedure, €|xecution, has right for adjudication |ietennine those questk)ns aad pa&.s rders are treated as decreed under of Civil Procedure, Therefore, fhe |agaixist which aii appeal Ues under [1 Procedzire ao.d not treating fh.e said 104 of the Code of CivU Procedure. 'e on Dattatraya Vishwaiiath Naik f.reported in 1983 MPLJ 23 axibther, Hon'ble the High Court of Ma<| passed by aa Executuig Co[ application under Order 21 is appealable under fhe pro^ aggrieved party has no right Hon'ble the High Court of order, bein.g a decree is apT| Section 96 read with Order 4: In the result, th| appeUants under Section 10^ Code of Civil Procedure, l^ appellants, if des.ii^' m.ay fil^ Section 96 read with Order cbiyfc^41^ ^l+lc^T^'fc^l <<(^^;i^ ^3lRl+l3yT^ST llhya Pradesh has held ttiat an.y order i|art aft.er l-2-1977 disposing of an. I^ule 97 of the Code of CivU Procedurc feions of the araended Act aad the |o file aay suit. Therefore, as laid by ftpadhya Pradesh also, the iaipugned ^alable only under tlie provision of ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, misceUaaeous appeal filed by tlie read with Order 43 Rule 1 of tlie |08 is not tenable. However, fhe regular appeal ia accordaace wifh 4|1 of tiie Code of Civil Proccdure aiid •@) XI-HC-78 *ll*iwi aiTT^ ^vSS "llHlri^l, tp-^l^<i<?, ROKI^ . ^\^.^>^\2^/^S- W^200 an'^^T^pTRiicp ?P?T9n'^9Tfl»+ii<p c ^ G.Smgh ^\ ^ \ J^ ^ cy \ ^ '^ 7^</ W^^T'nRR? (4<lf*i61<£i) S'^ITW? ^lf^T OT^^T otlier vanous legal provisior| observations, the appeal is In the Ught of a^ stay aad I.A.No.2811/2005 ft| |s of other laws. Witli flie aforesaid dibinissed, |>ove order, M.(C,)P.No. 1542/2005 for \r urgent heaidiig staiid disposed of, Sd//- V.K.Shrivastava Judge cpi«fc>)4ixiwi^f^'^St 1<Ri^i<< ^3lKl4l 3IT^^T