S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) WIDOW and Minor son of judgment-debtor have approached this Court for setting aside the order dated 6-11-1987 of the executing Court. They filed Civil Revision under S. 115, C. P. C. against the order. Subsequently, however, they prayed the same to be converted to an appeal. Such application having been allowed, present appeal has been registered. ( 2 ) FOLLOWING two questions arise for consideration. (A) Whether appeal in this Court is maintainable? (b) Whether order dated 6-11-1987 suffers from material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate contentions of learned counsel for both parties, facts relevant are to be narrated in short to indicate the circumstances under which impugned order was passed. ( 4 ) OPPOSITE party No. 1 filed suit for recovery of money and on the basis of decree Execution Case was filed against late Gourpal Choudhury, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 who is minor. Coming across a notice published in daily 'samaj' dated 28-12-1985 calling upon husband of petitioner to appear in the Execution proceeding for realisation of Rs. 7,408. 80 Ps. with further interest and costs, decree in O. S. No. 83 of 1980-III on 19-8-1981 by attachment and sale of movable property, appellant No. 1 appeared in the proceeding with her minor son as address of Gourpal was indicated to be the official residence of appellant No. 1 who is a receptionist in the State Guest House. They brought to the notice of the Court that they have not inherited any property from the judgment-debtor Gourpal who was not residing with them in the official residence of appellant No. 1 since she was separately residing with the children on account of dissension with her husband. ( 5 ) GOURPAL is dead and amount decreed could not be realised from him. Hence Executing Court directed by order dated 9-3-1987 recovery of the amount decreed from the appellants by attachment and sale of their movable property. When steps were taken for attachment, an application was filed by appellants on 26-10-1987 for recalling the order dated 9-3-1987. Executing Court having rejected the same, Civil Revision was filed which has been converted to an appeal. ( 6 ) MR. N. Prusty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that suit having been valued at Rs. 7,408. 80 Ps. Executing Court having rejected the same, Civil Revision was filed which has been converted to an appeal. ( 6 ) MR. N. Prusty, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 submitted that suit having been valued at Rs. 7,408. 80 Ps. appeal ought to have been filed in the Court of District Judge and on such appeal in this Court is not maintainable. This contention need not detain me long since no appeal lies against refusal to recall an order even if the order sought to be recalled is appealable. Accordingly, rightly Civil Revision was filed. Application for converting the name to appeal was misconceived. Since no appeal lies against the impugned order, revision is maintainable in this Court. ( 7 ) THERE is no finding that property attached belongs to the deceased judgment-debtor. When petitioner No. 1 claims the property ordered to be attached to be her personal property and there is no evidence that the same belonged to deceased judgment-debtor. Executing Court ought to have considered if the same is liable to attachment and sale in view of Ss. 51 and 52, C. P. C. On the admitted position that applicants are widow and minor son, this position becomes material. Attachment in violation of Section 52, C. P. C. cannot be sustained. Accordingly, refusal to recall the order on the ground that there is no evidence in support of the plea that appellant No. 1 did not inherit any property of her husband the deceased judgment-debtor does not answer the requirement of S. 53. Impugned order is liable to be set aside, so that Executing Court shall consider the question in the light of the provisions of S. 53, C. P. C. Decree-holder shall be given opportunity to file objection to the application and both parties shall be given opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. ( 8 ) IN the result, impugned order is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.