JUDGMENT - NAIK A.B., J.:---This revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver below Exh. 1 in R.D. No. 9/96. By the said order the learned Executing Court passed an order of issuance of warrant under Order 21, Rule 43 of the C.P.C. for recovery of amount due from the judgement debtor and also issue show cause notice to him as to why he should not be prosecuted for offence of breach of trust for not depositing the amount as directed by Court. In order to appreciate the points involved in this revision application and in order to find out whether the executing Court has jurisdiction to pass such order. It is necessary to refer and state facts in detail. Respondent original plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) instituted R.C.S. No. 201/81 against the petitioners original defendants (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for injunction and subsequently the plaint was amended and the plaintiff sought possession of land S. No. 203 admeasuring 2 hectares 56 ares situate at village Raver and also in respect of land Gat No. 458. The said suit came to be filed on 24-11-1981. During pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of receiver and accordingly, Receiver came to be appointed. After Receiver was appointed, two applications Exhs. 190, 211 came to be filed seeking some directions against the receiver and for removal of defendants who were in possession as the agent of the Receiver. After hearing both the sides the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver by the order dated 18th September, 1994 disposed of both the applications by passing the order which reads thus: "The plaintiff is hereby directed to suggest the name of an Advocate of at least 10 years standing at the Bar with the consent of defendant to be appointed as a Receiver, Advocate Shri S.S. Phalak is continued as a receiver until the appointment of new Receiver is made. 2. The prayer of plaintiff for removing defendants as agents of receiver and to give the suit filed as agent to any other person in public auction is hereby rejected. 3. The prayer of the plaintiff for taking action of Contempt of Court against defendants is hereby rejected. 4. The prayer of plaintiff is taking the security of two lakhs rupees from defendant is hereby rejected. 5. 3. The prayer of the plaintiff for taking action of Contempt of Court against defendants is hereby rejected. 4. The prayer of plaintiff is taking the security of two lakhs rupees from defendant is hereby rejected. 5. The receiver Advocate Shri S.S. Phalak is hereby directed to give the statement of accounts and to deposit the amount in his hand in Court within 7 days from the date of this order. 6. The defendants are also directed to deposit the income of 1981-82, 82-83 in Court if the said income is in their hands. 7. The prayer of institution of criminal proceeding against defendant is hereby rejected. 8. The plaintiff is hereby directed to give the list of proposed suggestions, which has to be given to the receiver and the copy of the said list of suggestions should be supplied to the defendants." After the order dated 18th September, 1994 the defendants approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being W.P. No. 5180/84. The said writ petition was heard by this Court (Coram : S.C. Pratap, J.) (as then he was). On 9-4-1985 by modifying Clause 6 of the order dated 18th September, 1984 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver and some additional directions were issued. The additional directions issued read thus: "3(a) Defendant shall deposit in the trial Court as agent of the Court Receiver amount at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per annum from the year 1981-82 onwards (1st July to 30th June, of the next year). At this rate of total amount for four years 1981-82 to 1984-85 comes to Rs. 80,000/-. Out of this defendant has already deposited in the trial Court amount of Rs. 25,320/-. Towards this balance, defendants will deposit in the trial Court an amount of Rs. 34,320/- latest by 30th June, 1985 and the remaining balance of Rs. 20,000/- latest by 31st August, 1985. (b) For the years 1985-86 onwards till the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the defendants will continue to deposit in the trial Court amount at the same aforesaid rate of Rs. 20,000/- per annum. Amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the year 1985-86 to be deposited by the defendants latest by asked July 1986. And similar amounts for each subsequent years to be deposited latest by asked July of each subsequent year. 20,000/- per annum. Amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the year 1985-86 to be deposited by the defendants latest by asked July 1986. And similar amounts for each subsequent years to be deposited latest by asked July of each subsequent year. (c) Out of the aforesaid deposited amounts, the plaintiff will be entitled to withdraw amount at the rate of Rs. 8000/- per year from the year 1981-82 onwards but on furnishing to the satisfaction of the trial Court security in that behalf. (d) The remaining amount lying in the trial Court should be invested by the trial court in a fixed deposit account of a nationalised bank initially for a period of one year and thereafter on similar terms till hearing and final disposal of the suit. (e) In view of the above order relating to deposits in the trial Court by the defendants and withdrawal of part thereof on furnishing security, the defendants will not be required to maintain any accounts. 4. Rest of the order of the trial Court is not disturbed. 5. The trial Court to hear and decide Regular Civil Suit No. 201 of 1981 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year of the receipt of writ hereof by the said Court. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 9-4-1985. The suit was to be disposed of on merit within one year as per direction of this Court but the suit was not decided. On 26-8-1996 the plaintiff filed purshis stating that he has obtained possession on 20-5-1990 and the possession which is received as owner of the land, therefore, he prayed for disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the learned Civil Judge passed an order below Exh. 1 which reads thus: "Vide Exh. 440 and 441 the plaintiff had withdrawn the suit as he has received the possession. Hence, the suit is dismissed. Issue Court fee refund as per Rules." Before the suit could be disposed of as above, the plaintiff on 14-2-1996 filed application for execution of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5180/84. In that application the plaintiff claimed that it was incumbent on the defendants to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per year from 1981-82 till 31-8-1995. According to the plaintiff the amount from 1981 to 1995-96 comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of that the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. In that application the plaintiff claimed that it was incumbent on the defendants to deposit Rs. 20,000/- per year from 1981-82 till 31-8-1995. According to the plaintiff the amount from 1981 to 1995-96 comes to Rs. 3,00,000/-, out of that the defendants have deposited a sum of Rs. 25,680/- in the Court and the balance of Rs. 2,75,320/- is not deposited. The plaintiff sought the assistance of the Court for recovery of the said amount plus the expenses claiming total sum of Rs. 2,75,030-15 by attachment of the property of the defendants i.e. Gat No. 3199/1 situate at Raver. The learned Judge issued notice to the defendants. On the issue of notice on the said application, defendants filed their say on 19-7-1996 inter alia contending that there is no decree directing the defendants to pay the amount and therefore, execution cannot be proceeded with as the claim is made beyond period of limitation, the Darkhast application is to be dismissed. Again on 5-8-1996 the defendant filed further clarification where it is stated that the plaintiff has obtained possession of the land in the month of May 1990 and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for claim amount from 1990 onwards. 2.The learned Civil Judge heard the parties and passed the order on 22-8-1996 by directing issuance of warrant under Order 21, Rule 43 and also for show cause notice. While allowing application the learned Civil Judge has made following observation: "6. Apart from these facts and legal position, the order passed by the Honble Lordship states that the possession of the defendants-judgment debtors is in the capacity of agent of the Receiver. The receiver is a person appointed by the Court to take custody of any property. It is presumed that the custody of the receiver means the custody of the Court. Therefore, the agent of that Receiver means the agent of the Court. The agent of the receiver is also responsible as per the duties of the Receiver. Hence, as per Rule 4 of Order XL of Civil Procedure Code, the judgment debtors can be compelled to deposit the amount by enforcing the warrant of payment of amount. Hence, for this reason also, the application is maintainable. 7. In fact, the defendants-judgment debtors have disobeyed the orders of the High Court and, therefore, they are liable for the contempt. Hence, for this reason also, the application is maintainable. 7. In fact, the defendants-judgment debtors have disobeyed the orders of the High Court and, therefore, they are liable for the contempt. But, the matter is brought to the notice of the Court beyond limitation. However, the defendants-judgement debtors are not exonerated from the criminal liability i.e. for committing criminal breach of trust." 3.The Revision Application was taken for motion hearing on 8-8-1996, this Court issued notice of admission and granted interim relief in terms of prayer Clause B with direction that the defendants to deposit a sum of Rs. 75,000/- in the Court below within six weeks. Failure to deposit the said amount the interim relief stands vacated. After service of the notice the revision application was placed for motion hearing on 31-12-1996 and this Court after hearing both the Advocates, issued Rule nisi. As the amount was deposited as per the order of this Court, a prayer was made by the plaintiff for withdrawal of the amount. Accordingly, this Court permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the amount on furnishing security. While admitting this revision application, this Court noted this point involved in this revision application which reads thus: "The substantial question arise whether the Civil Court would execute the order passed in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as if it is a decree passed by the Civil Court." Shri Dixit, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the learned C.J.J.D. (the executing Court) has no jurisdiction and authority to execute the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5180/1984, which was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel contended that the order passed by this Court does not come within the sphere of sections 36 and 38 of the C.P.C. and the order passed by this Court under Article 227 is not a decree passed by the Civil Court which can be executed by the Civil Court under Order 21 of the C.P.C. The learned Counsel submitted that the Civil Court at Raver gets no jurisdiction to execute a decree or order passed by this Court unless the execution is filed in this Court and this Court transfers the decree for execution to that Court as the property is situated within the jurisdiction of that Court. The learned Counsel submitted that even though, it is held that the order passed by the High Court is a decree, and it can be executed, the Civil Court at Raver cannot execute the order as it is not a decree passed in a suit by that Court. He submitted the execution proceedings filed on 14-4-1996 are barred by limitation as the plaintiff is seeking to execute the orders passed by this Court on 9-4-1985, even if it is held that the Court at Raver can execute the decree. He submitted that the order passed by the Civil Judge is without jurisdiction and the learned Civil Judge committed material irregularity in issuing warrant under Order 21, Rule 43, further issuing directions regarding lodging of prosecution is also without authority of law. He therefore, submitted that the learned Civil Judge has acted with material irregularity and exercised the jurisdiction which is not vested in him by law. Shri Dixit submitted that the suit was not decreed but it is dismissed as the plaintiff filed an application for withdrawal of the said suit. On the application filed by the plaintiff for withdrawal of suit, the learned trial Court passed an order on 26-8-1996, suit is dismissed as plaintiff received possession. As such there was no decree of that Court in R.C.S. No. 201/1987, which can be put for execution. He submitted that the order of this Court passed in a writ petition is not the decree of C.J.J.D. Raver, hence no execution is tenable in that Court. Therefore, he submitted that the execution filed on 14-2-1996 is liable to be rejected. 4.Per contra, Shri Katneshwarkar submitted that the judgment and order passed under Article 227 is a decree and the decree can be executed by approaching the Civil Court by filing application under Order 21 of the C.P.C. Shri Katneshwarkar, relied on the Rules framed by this Court regarding execution of the decree or order passed by this Court in writ petition. Shri Katneshwarkar, submitted that the judgement of the High Court in writ petition has to be executed in the manner provided for execution of a decree passed by the Civil Court. Shri Katneshwarkar, submitted that the judgement of the High Court in writ petition has to be executed in the manner provided for execution of a decree passed by the Civil Court. The learned Counsel submitted that as per the order passed by this Court in writ petition the defendant was under obligation to deposit the amount as he was enjoying the possession of the land and the amount is not deposited as per the order passed by this Court, the plaintiff has no other alternative than to seek execution of that order by filing execution petition in Civil Court at Raver. 5. This Court while admitting the revision has framed a point involved in the application. With the backdrop of the point so framed and the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel, I have to find out whether the Civil Court gets any jurisdiction to execute the decree. Section 141 of the C.P.C. defines Misc. proceedings. It is stated that the procedure provided in the code in regard to the suit shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable in all the proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction. The explanation to this section reads thus: "In this section, the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution." As it is not disputed the writ petition was filed in this Court was under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such the procedure provided in the Code is applicable to the proceeding in this Court. The procedure for dealing with the applications filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is prescribed and provided under the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Chapter 17 of the Rules deals with elaborate procedure dealing with the petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Rule 21 deals with execution of order passed on Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 23 provides for execution of order or decree on original side, by the amendment made in Rule 23 this Bench can entertain the execution application and transmit it to the Court of competent jurisdiction for execution. Rule 21 deals with execution of order passed on Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rule 23 provides for execution of order or decree on original side, by the amendment made in Rule 23 this Bench can entertain the execution application and transmit it to the Court of competent jurisdiction for execution. Shri Katneshwarkar, relied on Rule 27 of Chapter 17 and submitted that the orders passed by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall be executable in the same manner as if it is a decree of Court or Tribunal. Having noticed distinction between Rule 21 and Rule 27, I have to find out whether the order passed by this Court in writ petition on 4-4-1985 is a decree and which Court is competent to execute the decree. As Rule 27 provides for a manner of execution of decree. Rule 27 reads thus: "27. Execution of orders under Article 227.---An order made by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution shall be executable in the same manner in which the order made by the Court or Tribunal, against which the application under Article 227 has been made, could have been executed under the law." By reading this Rule is clear that the order made by the High Court under Article 227 has to be executed as if it is a decree and the manner of execution as provided in the C.P.C. for execution of decree passed by the Court or Tribunal. Undisputedly in the present case no decree is passed by the Civil Court in the suit which was dismissed as withdrawn. Undisputedly the execution petition was filed on 14-2-1996 was for claiming the amount from the defendants as per the order passed by this Court in writ petition. As such there is no decree passed by the Civil Court at Raver. If the decree is not passed by the Civil Court then as per Rule 27 the order made by this Court under Article 227 is to be executed then a question may arises in which Court the execution petition be filed. In the application which is filed by the plaintiff has referred to the order passed by this Court in writ petition. The application was filed before the Court at Raver. In the application which is filed by the plaintiff has referred to the order passed by this Court in writ petition. The application was filed before the Court at Raver. The plaintiff sought assistance of the Court to sell the property of the defendants for non-payment of the amount as per the order of this Court. In my judgment therefore, as there was no decree passed by the Civil Court, the Civil Court at Raver has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by this Court in an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 21 before that Court. As there is no decree passed by the Civil Court which could be said to have been merged in the order passed by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the writ petition which was filed in this Court, the order of appointment of receiver was challenged, obviously that application was at the interlocutory stage of the suit, hence there is no question of merger of the decree of the trial Court in the order passed by this Court. Reading Rule 27, it is apparent that when a petition is filed in this Court under Article 227 challenged the judgment and decree of subordinate Court and if the Court modifies or varies that order, it cannot be called or termed as the decree passed by the Civil Court which will give that Court jurisdiction to execute the order passed by this Court. At this stage useful reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in (Kadarbhai Noorali Bohari and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, reported in 1985(1) Bom.C.R. 104 , where the learned Single Judge of this Court (Coram : B.C. Gadgil, J., as then he was) dealing with an order passed by this Court in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Considering the provisions of Rule 21 to 24 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, contained in Chapter 17 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, this Court held that the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Amalner is incompetent to execute the decree. Considering the provisions of Rule 21 to 24 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, contained in Chapter 17 of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, this Court held that the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Amalner is incompetent to execute the decree. Though, this Court was dealing with order passed by this Court under Article 226 and it is to be executed in the manner provided under Rule 21 to 24, but the case at hand is undisputedly an order passed by this Court in a writ petition under Article 227. Prima facie it will not be governed by Rule 21 to 24 of Rules. Let me find out from the code whether there is any provision for execution of order passed by this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As there is no provision made in the Code for execution of the order passed by this Court in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by applying the ratio of Kadarbhais case to the order passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the facts of this case (As there is no executable decree passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver in R.C.S. No. 201/1981) the Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver is incompetent to execute the order of this Court. 6.Part II of the C.P.C. which deals with execution which provides for the application of orders of the Court. Section 37 defines the Court which passed the decree. "37. Definition of Court which passed a decree.---The expression "Court which passed a decree" or words to that effect, shall in relation to the execution of decrees, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, be deemed to include, (a) where the decree to be executed has been passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, the Court of first instance, and (b) where the Court of first instance has ceased to exist or to have jurisdiction to execute it, the Court which, if the suit wherein the decree was passed was instituted at the time of making the application for the execution of the decree, would have jurisdiction to try such suit. (Explanation.---The Court of first instance does not cease to have jurisdiction to execute a decree merely on the ground that after the institution of the suit wherein the decree was passed or after the passing of the decree, any area has been transferred from the jurisdiction of that Court to the jurisdiction of any other Court; but, in every such case, such other Court shall also have jurisdiction to executed the decree, if at the time of making the application for execution of the decree it would have jurisdiction to try the said suit.)" Reading the above said provision where the code has defined the Court which passed a decree. Considering the fact that the writ petition which was filed in this Court was against an order passed by the Civil Court in an interlocutory application of appointment of Receiver. While modifying the order of Receiver this Court added certain conditions to the conditions which were already imposed by the Civil Court. When the execution petition was filed the suit was not decided and there was no decree. The plaintiff took the order of this Court as a decree and ventured to file the execution petition before the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver. At this stage it will be useful to refer to the application filed by the plaintiff before the Civil Court i.e. executing Court on 14-2-1996, under Order 21, Rule 11(2) the form of application is provided in Appendix E. Form No. 6 in Column No. (3) meant for date of decree the plaintiff mentioned W.P. No. 5180/1984 dated 9-4-1995 makes it clear that the plaintiff requested the Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver to execute the order (decree) passed by this Court, thus in my judgment the decree which was sought to be executed was not a decree passed by the Civil Court. Section 38 of the Code defines the Court which may execute the decree. As per section 38 a decree may be executed either by the Court which passed it or by the Court to which it is sent for execution. It is not disputed before me by both the learned Counsel that the plaintiff has not filed execution proceedings, in this Court or this Court has transferred the decree to the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver for execution. It is not disputed before me by both the learned Counsel that the plaintiff has not filed execution proceedings, in this Court or this Court has transferred the decree to the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver for execution. In my judgment therefore, the Civil Court i.e. Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver has no jurisdiction to execute the order passed by this Court in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as it is not the decree passed by that Court. As the Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver has no jurisdiction to execute the decree, therefore, the order passed by learned Judge on August 22, 1996 below Exh. 1 in R.D. No. 9/96 thus without jurisdiction as such the learned Civil Judge has assumed the jurisdiction which is not vested in him by passing the impugned order. In my judgment therefore, the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Raver, is thus without jurisdiction and the said is set aside. Accordingly, I hold that Civil Court cannot execute the order passed by this Court in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the suit was dismissed. 7.Now the question remains about the amount which is withdrawn by the plaintiff which was deposited by the defendant pursuant to the order passed by this Court. As I am of the opinion that the Civil Court cannot execute the order passed by this Court in writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as it is not a decree of the Civil Court the defendants are entitled for restitution. The plaintiff therefore, directed to refund amount of Rs. 75,000/- which he has withdrawn on furnishing security. As the plaintiff has enjoyed the amount of Rs. 75,000/-. The plaintiff is directed to refund of Rs. 75,000/- to the defendant with interest of 9% from the date which he has received till the payment is made to the defendant. Accordingly, Rule made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----