1 S.B.CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO. 178/2008 (LRs of Mangilal Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & anr.) Date of Order :: 21st November 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI None present for the appellants Mr.P.K.Lohra for the respondent No. 1 … Nobody has appeared for the appellants though the matter has been called out twice over. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has pointed out that on the earlier occasions too, nobody appeared for the appellants and submitted that the Court has already granted enough indulgence to the appellants and the present appeal being totally bereft of merits, deserves to be dismissed. Having perused the record of this appeal and so also the impugned order dated 24.09.2007, this Court finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of the respondent. By the impugned order dated 24.09.2007, an objection petition made by the appellants purportedly under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’) has been rejected by the learned Additional District Judge No.2 Chittorgarh with the observation, inter alia, that the petition was not even competent for the sale proceedings in relation to 2 the property in question in execution of the decree passed in favour of the respondent-Bank having already been finalised and the sale having been confirmed on 02.02.2006. This apart, the learned Executing Court has also found the objections sought to raised by the appellants meritless for the land having been advertised and sold as stated in the decree in question and even when the identification number got changed, the measurement of the land in question remained the same and the objectors failed to establish if theirs was any other land than the one covered by the decree in question, that was put to auction. Having regard to the facts as noticed by the learned Executing Court and the findings reached, this Court is satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. It may also be pointed out that though the office has proceeded to register it as Civil Regular First Appeal as per the caption carried by the memo of appeal but then, the present one is not an appeal against any decree; and, looking to the nature of the order impugned, ought to have been registered as Execution First Appeal rather than Regular First Appeal. In such Execution Appeal, when apparently the objection petition was liable to be rejected for the sale proceedings having been finalized, no purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending. 3 Nobody was present for the appellants on 21.10.2008 and yet, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned for four weeks. Nobody is present for the appellants today either though the matter has called out twice over. There being regular defaults on the part of the appellants and there being no merit in the case, the appeal deserves to be, and is, hereby dismissed. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK