ORDER
T.V. Masilamani, J.
1. This revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.3.1998 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli in E.A.No.175 of 1998 in E.P.No.870 of 1996 in Trichy Sub Court’s O.S.No.220 of 1993.
2. The revision petitioner filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 105 and Section 151 C.P.C. to restore the petition in E.A.No.407 of 1997 which was dismissed for default on 6.2.1998. While that petition was pending enquiry after the respondent filed the counter affidavit on 20.3.1998, the learned District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli heard both sides and passed the impugned order on merits dismissing the said petition on 24.3.1998. The revision petitioner has come forward with this petition challenging the said order passed by the executing Court.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued at the outset that this petition is not maintainable in law for the simple reason that only an appeal will lie against the impugned order in view of the provisions under Order 43 Rule 1(ja) of the Civil Procedure Code which provides as follows:
“An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely:-
(ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of Rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of that order is appealable.”
4. In this context, it is relevant to point out that as per Order 21 Rule 105 C.P.C., the executing Court dismissed the above said petition in E.A.No.407 of 1997 for non-prosecution by the revision petitioner herein. It is no doubt true that the said petition in E.A.No.407 of 1997 was filed by the revision petitioner under Order 21 Rule 58 and Section 151 C.P.C. to raise the attachment over the property involved in the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent has adverted my attention to the explanation to Order 21 Rule 105 C.P.C. which provides that an application referred to in sub-rule(1) of rule 105 includes a claim or objection made under rule 58 of the Code. Hence, he has argued rightly that in view of the disposal of the petition E.A.No.407 of 1997 under Order 21 Rule 105 C.P.C., the order dismissing the application filed under Order 21 Rule 106 to restore the petition in E.A.No.407 of 1997 is appelable. It is relevant to note that since Order 43 Rule 1(ja) of C.P.C. which was introduced by way of amendment to the Code by Act 104 of 1976, the application referred to in Order 21 Rule 105 (1) of C.P.C. is only appealable and therefore, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable in law.
5. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has made an attempt to put forth an argument that since the impugned order is not a speaking order, this revision is maintainable, he has not cited any provision of law nor referred to any precedent laid down by this High Court and the Supreme Court on this point. Therefore, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and come to the irresistible conclusion that this revision is not sustainable in law as the impugned order is appealable one and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
6. Thus the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed accordingly. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.9766 of 1998 and 8943 of 1999 are closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.