Judgment : ( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 8-10-2001 passed by the learned single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 1/99. ( 2 ) WE have heard Mr. S. B. Gadodia, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents on the question of maintainability of the appeal since a preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that this letters patent appeal is not maintainable. ( 3 ) THE aforementioned Misc. Appeal No. 1/99 was filed by the appellants under Order 43, Rule 1 (i) of the C. P. C. challenging the order dated 23-12-98 passed by the 7th Addl. Sub-Judge, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 26/98. The said Misc. Case No. 26/98 arose out of an Execution case No. 1/83a. It appears that the plaintiffs-respondents obtained a decree for specific performance of agreement for sale passed in title suit No. 8 125/81. The decree-holders levied said Execution Case No. 1/83a and in the said execution proceeding the decree-holders deposited the balance amount of consideration and filed a draft sale deed which was approved. The draft sale deed was typed on stamped paper and filed in Court which was sent to the Registration Office and the Court executed the sale deed. The appellant-judgment-debtor filed a petition purported to be under Section 340 read with Section 195 (1) of the Cr. P. C. praying for a preliminary inquiry with regard to the forgery committed upon the decree-holders in the matter of approval of the draft sale deed. The Executing Court found that similar objection was raised by the judgment-debtor with regard to the legality and validity of the sale deed executed in favour of the respondents and the said objection was rejected. The Executing Court, therefore, rejected the Misc. case No. 26/98. Against the said order the appellants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 1/99 under Order 43, Rule 1 (I), C. P. C. The said Misc. Appeal was dismissed by the learned single Judge in terms of the impugned order. The Executing Court, therefore, rejected the Misc. case No. 26/98. Against the said order the appellants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 1/99 under Order 43, Rule 1 (I), C. P. C. The said Misc. Appeal was dismissed by the learned single Judge in terms of the impugned order. ( 4 ) SECTION 104 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure very clearly provides that no further appeal lay from any order passed in appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 of the C. P. C. The law has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. New Kenilworth Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. Orissa State Finance Corporation reported in AIR 1997 SC 978 . ( 5 ) WE have, therefore, no doubt in our mind in holding that the instant Letters Patent Appeal against the order passed by the learned single Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction under Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. is not maintainable. ( 6 ) MR. S. R. Gadodia, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Employer in Relation to Management of Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Union of India, (Judgment Today, (2001) 2 JT (SC) 87 in support of his contention that Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable. We are of the definite view that the ratio decided by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application at all in the aforesaid case for the reason that this appeal has been filed against the appellate order passed in the appeal filed u/s. 104 read with Order 43, Rule 1, C. P. C. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .