m THEHIGH COURT OF JITDICATURE CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR W^A.VSO. l^isl / 2005 Sngte Bench APPEILANTS ^kPPLICANTS 1, y z^y" ./^/w ^y/' ^'^••" Sint. Sunita Chhabada, Agedabout 41 years, W/o Shri Sunil Kuniar Chhabada, R/o Telephone Exchange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) Kunal Clihabada, Aged about 16_ years, S_/o Sunil Kuinar Chhabada, Minor Through Guardian Mother Sint. Sunita Chhabada, R/o Telephone Exchange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur (C.G.) Kapil Chhabada, Aged about 14, S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Chliabada Miaor Througli GuardiaTr Mother Smt. Sunita Chhabada, R/o Telephone Exchange Road, Near Geeta Lodge, BilaspTir (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS PIAINTIFF DECREE HOLDER DEFENDANTS J10DGMENT DEBTORS 1. Bank of India, Through-Brancfa Manager Branchoffice Dayalband, BUaspur Tahsil & Distt. BiIaspur<C.G.) 2. y Ram.esh Kuinar Chhabada, aged about 47 years, S/o Shri Omprakash Chhabada, Occupation- Business R/o Behind Geeta Lodge, BUaspur, Tahsil & Distt: Bilaspur; ^ 3. Omprakash Chhabadda, ^ aged about 69 years Occupation-Business R/o Near Geeta Lodge, Bilaspur, Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur. Sanjay Agrwal, Aged about 33 years, S/o Late Shri Ramchandra Agrwal, R/o Kranti Nagar Bilaspur. Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) API^AI, UNDBK SECTIOK 104R^>WrTHORI?ER*'$3 RUtE 1 OF THE CODE OP CWSL PROCEDURE 1908. p^CHOm^ XI-HC-78 <^ 'rpreT^'n^ ^wf ^l^tri^l, u>Ti1<H<is,R«m3'< (^.A-^. 12^1/c'y aii^sTipTRi'ii* tiaiisii^nri'fi* 1'A an^STtR^ (ylgq.s) ^200 8^ai8R^rf^f3II^?T 27-1-2006 Mr. V.D.Bajpai, ^ and Mr. A.P.Dubj Mr. Rajeev.BharE} caveator/ responf) Mr. Sanjay Ku. Sanjay Agrawal. None for respond) penibr Advocate with Mr. R.K.Tiwari ;y, counsel for'the appellants. (t, counsel for fhe No.3, Oraprakash Chhabada. A^rawal, counsel for respondentNo.4, -espon(|lent Heard on adinissi Durmg fhe afad B/2000 (Bank of India, tlifj Rajmesh Kuinar Chhab.ada present appeUaiits filed au EJ] 98, 101, 102 aad 103 offtie has been disinissed bv the Ci| 2005. Aggrieved. by that appeal uiider Sectioa 104 re; CivU Procedure. Order 43 contaias a Ust of orders agaid pl-ovisiou of Section 104 Adiuittedly, fhe impugned 01 Froni bare reading of Section| is also evident fhat, any oi| under Order 21 Rules 97, 98,| Procedure does not corue wil Code of CivU Procedure. ——^ <bl<lid<J1'1 *11«ldT^I"fcl<3>(l"l'K;i< ^3il^Tan^?T •nts No.l and 2. ^on and M.(C.)P.No. 1506/2005. pen4ellc}r of the Execution Case No.12- decree holder vs. M/s Oinprakash others, tb.e judgnient debtors), fhe EJppUcation under Order 21 Rules 97, Cod'e of Civfl Procedure and the sarae |>urt vide irapugned onlerdated 13-9- (^rder, fhie appeUauts have filed tliis i|d with Order 43 Rule 1 ofthe Code of 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure |st which au appeal shaU lie under fhe of the Code of Civil Procedure. tder does not find place ia that list. 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it jder ^passed on fhe appUcation filed 101, 102 aad 103 ofthe Code ofCivil thm. the ainbit of Seetion 104 6f the XI-HC-78 ^MM^W ^iw ^<i\wn<i, wa\w\4, Rrtiti'j's (^ ./\, t^>,.(^^J/^S^ 2- ^200 3TI^?T?)T Ri'li* gaiT3If^?T*litb 3(I^?r q? (4cl(j<s|<g) s^aitR^grsii^sT Under Order 21 the person, who obstructs and the Court has right to order accordinglv. Those Order 21 Rule 103 of fhe Cd)de unpugned order is a decreel Section 96 of fhe Code of Ci^S. decree an order under Sectidn. The appellaats placed reliai[ pule 97 of the C'ode of Civil Procediire, ixecution, has right for adiudication determiue those questions and pass (tirders are treated as decraed uiider of Civil Procedure. Therefore, tfae agaiust which an appeal Ues under ^il Procedure and not treating the said 104 of fhe Code of Civfl Proce.diire. tce on Dattatoraya Vishwanath Naik vs.Mangal Jiwanlal and aliother, reported in 1983 MPLJ 23. Hon'ble the High Court of M4 passed bv an Executiug Ct auptication under Onler 21 is appealable uiider the aggrieved party has no right] Hon'ble the High Court of order, being a decree' is apj Section 96 read wifb. Order 4| In fh.e result, appellants under Section Code of Civil Procedure, appellants, if desire, uiay fi^ Section 96 read wifh Order cbKlId^l'1 t|WdVtF[5tcl xlul'f^i'! ipa<f^Tan^?r ^dhva Pradesh has held tliat euiv order )urt after 1-2-1977 disposin.si of an Rule 97 of the Code of CivU Procedure prcjvisioas of the aiaeiided A&t and fhe |to file aiiy suit. Therefore, as laid by Madhva Pradesh also, fhe impugned jiealable only under fhe provision of of the Code of Civil Procedure. tl^e iniscellajieous appeal filed by the 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1. of the lp08 is not tenable. However, the regular appeal in accoidaiice witli 1 oftheCode of Civil Procedure and XI-HC-78 ® ffPf?Sf5SW ijt.Tj •-^1^Iri^, t»-nl<<i'lio,Rrti<(-iy< C^^.uas. (2/-S-) y^5 ..-z,— 3II^?I qgzp (<yttgc|«) ^200 aii^srwR-ii* ?I8IT3n^?Tri)li<b G.!;nA B^n<R^1%CTan^?T ofher various legal provisioijis observations, the appeal is d| In fhe light of a^ stay aud I.A.No.2761/2005 ^ <t>l't|[d41-1 llldT^'fs'cl '<Ki|'K;it ^3iK)«iaii^?T of ofh.er laws. Wifh fhe aforesaid isuussed. aove.order, M,(C.)P;No. 1506/2005 for 3r urgent hearing stand disposed of. Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge