IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2302 of 2005 NIRMALA DEVI Versus RANJEET KUMAR MAHTO & ORS ----------- 20 14.07.2009 Heard Mr. M.N. Parbat, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Subodh Kumar No. 1, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1. Office has pointed out that in view of the fact that an application filed under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure(hereinafter to be referred to as “Code” has been disposed of under Rules 100, 101 and 103 of Order XXI of the Code and in view of order dated 20.06.2001 passed in Civil Revision No. 887 of 2001 such order is appealable before the appellate court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the above, I also find that the office report is correct and this civil revision is not maintainable against the impugned order, as there has been adjudication by the court below under the aforesaid provisions. As a result, this civil revision application is dismissed. However, the petitioner is given liberty to file an appeal within a month from today. If such appeal is filed within the aforesaid time along with a limitation 2 petition, the court conerned will dispose of the same taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has filed the present civil revision application on bona fide advice. It appears that on 11.08.2006 this Court passed an order of ad-interim stay of Execution Case No. 7 of 1999, pending before the Sub-Judge IVth, Begusarai. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner will be at liberty to move immediately before the executing court concerned and make a prayer for stay of further proceeding of the execution case concerned till filing of the appeal within the time granted by this Court. If such an application is filed before the executing court enclosing this order, then the executing court shall pass order on his application in accordance with law after hearing the parties. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)