ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—This civil revision petition arises from the order dated 31.1.2000 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Senior Division and C.J.M., Dharwad, in Execution Petition No. 87 of 1993 on I.A. No. 2 whereby the Principal Civil Judge and C.J.M., i.e., the lower appellate Court rejected the preliminary objection of the revision Petitioners against the maintainability of the appeal and held that the appeal to be maintainable. 2. The facts of the case in brief are; That the present revision Petitioners who are decree holders who have obtained money decree against the Respondents in O.S. No. 78 of 1963 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,977.50. The execution petition was filed on 20.4.1995. It may be mentioned that there were final decree proceedings, but those are not very material to mention at this stage. The decree holders prayed for execution of the judgment and decree by sale of movable and immovable properties of the judgment debtors. To this application for execution of the money decree objections were filed by the judgment debtors on various grounds and in paragraph 8 of the order, the Execution Court framed the following points for consideration; 1. Whether the L Rs of the Decree-holder is entitled to enforce the recovery of the decree amount against the L Rs of the L Rs in this Execution Petition? 2. Whether the L Rs of the Decree-holders are entitled for attachment and sale of the movable and immovable properties as described in the schedule for recovery of the Execution Petition amount? 3. What order the parties are entitled to? 3. The Execution Court recorded the findings in the affirmative on both points and rejected the objections of the judgment debtor. The operative portion of the order reads as under: In the result, it is held that execution petition is maintainable against the present L Rs of J. Drs on record and the L Rs of D. Hrs are entitled to take necessary steps against the properties of the L Rs of the J. Drs as described in the Execution Petition. The third prayer for detaining the J. Drs in the Civil Prison as stated in the Execution Petition is hereby rejected. E.P. is posted for steps by the D. Hrs. 4. The third prayer for detaining the J. Drs in the Civil Prison as stated in the Execution Petition is hereby rejected. E.P. is posted for steps by the D. Hrs. 4. On point No. 2 the Execution Court has recorded the following finding: Therefore, it clear that the properties described in the execution petition schedule are liable to be attached and sold for recovery of the execution petition claim. 5. In this view of the matter, it appears that the order which was passed by the Execution Court was an order under Order 21, Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Feeling aggrieved from the said order of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge, (Jr. Dn.), Dharwad, the judgment debtors have preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court under Order 43, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 7. That after service of notice on the Decree Holders, they have filed the objections raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal, which preliminary objection has been rejected by the lower appellate Court and the lower appellate Court held that the appeal was maintainable as the impugned order before the lower appellate Court prima facie appear to be under Order 21, Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure. 8. Feeling aggrieved from the said order of the lower appellate Court, the Decree Holders have come up in appeal before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. I have heard Sri R.U. Goulay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the revision Petitioners. 10. The learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners submitted that the learned Court below has held that the Execution Petition to be maintainable, as such the said order cannot be said to be appealable. Therefore, the order passed in the appeal rejecting the preliminary objection and holding the appeal to be maintainable is erroneous in law and results in the Civil Judge usurping the jurisdiction in illegal manner. 11. I have applied my mind to the above contentions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the revision Petitioners. 12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners appear to be based on misconception. A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court reveals that objection was taken for attachment and sale of the movable and immovable properties belonging to the judgment debtors. 12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioners appear to be based on misconception. A perusal of the order of the lower appellate Court reveals that objection was taken for attachment and sale of the movable and immovable properties belonging to the judgment debtors. The judgment debtors raised objection to the effect that the properties in question can't be attached at the instance of the legal representatives of the deceased decree-holders. The finding which I have quoted in the earlier part of the order of the Execution Court is that the properties are liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree for money and directed the decree holders to take necessary steps really reveals that the objection was one which was covered by Order 21, Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the impugned order could be challenged by way of appeal under Section 96 read with Order 21, Rule 58(4) Code of Civil Procedure Code. Order 21, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure as introduced by Act 104 of 1976 reads as under: Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. 13. Order 21, Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure, as introduced by Act No. 104 of 1976 per se reveals that with reference to right of appeal the impugned order is one passed under Order 21, Rule 58 Code of Civil Procedure so has to be taken as if it were a decree and with reference to the condition as to the appeal. Therefore, the appeal lies and could be filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure. When, I so observe, I find support for my view from the earlier decision of this Court in Sidramappa Rachappa Chindwar and Others vs. Shankaralingappa Veerappa Bilagi and Others, AIR 1979 Karn 89. Therefore, the appeal lies and could be filed under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure. When, I so observe, I find support for my view from the earlier decision of this Court in Sidramappa Rachappa Chindwar and Others vs. Shankaralingappa Veerappa Bilagi and Others, AIR 1979 Karn 89. It will be appropriate to quote the following observations: At this stage, I have to state that the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting parties having regard to the provision contained in Section 97(2)(g) of the Amendment Act, did not dispute that the claims before the Court below were claims which had to be adjudicated upon by the Court below under Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Amended Code treating them as claims falling under category (ii) adverted to earlier. In this view of the matter, though the Court below while making the orders under challenge in these revision petitions has stated that it was making summary orders and it was open to the aggrieved parties to file regular suits for establishing their rights, the orders under challenge are to be necessarily considered as decrees appealable as provided for in Sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 of the Amended Code. 14. Thus considered in my opinion, the lower appellate Court did not committed any error or jurisdictional error in rejecting the revision Petitioners' objection to the maintainability of the appeal. The order impugned in this revision petition does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. The revision petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.