Judgment All these four applications were heard together as the issue involved in these cases are the same and, therefore, these cases are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Four eviction suits bearing Eviction Suit Nos. 14/1986, 03/1988, 04/1988 and 05/1988, were filed on behalf of the plaintiff petitioners against the defendants, who were the tenants. The suits were decreed. Against that, title appeals were preferred, which also got dismissed. Thereupon, second appeals bearing S.A. Nos. 89 of 2005, 140 of 2005, 145 of 2005 and 149 of 2005, were preferred before this Court, which appeals were also dismissed. Being aggrieved with those orders, the defendants tenants preferred S.L.Ps. Those S.L.Ps were also dismissed. However, the tenant defendant, who had preferred the S. L.Ps, were granted six months time to vacate the premises in question subject to filing of usual undertaking in the Court within four weeks from that date. When the defendant tenant did not vacate the suit premises the plaintiff decree holder filed execution cases. In those execution cases applications under Order 21 Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, were filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Those applications were rejected on 09/07/2007. Against that order, miscellaneous appeals were preferred before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which got dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 27/10/2010. After more than five years applications under Order 21 Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 C.P.C, were filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Hazaribagh Nagar Parishad on 08/06/2012, which was dismissed after holding that no case is made out even to register a miscellaneous case. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in spite of such decision holding therein that the applications are not fit to be registered as miscellaneous case, miscellaneous appeals were filed before the District Judge, Hazaribagh, which have been admitted for hearing though at the time of admission objection was raised over the maintainability of the miscellaneous appeals by taking a plea that when the miscellaneous case was dismissed at the threshhold without even registering it as miscellaneous case by the executing court, appeals cannot be maintained as appeal can be maintained only when the order is passed under Order 21 Rules 98 and 100 of the Code. Ignoring this objection taken by the decree holders, the appeals have been admitted for hearing. Ignoring this objection taken by the decree holders, the appeals have been admitted for hearing. Being aggrieved with that order, these applications have been filed. 4. Admittedly, the miscellaneous appeals preferred against the order passed under Order 21 Rule 97 has been admitted for hearing in spite of the fact that objections were raised on behalf of the decree holders to the effect that the appeals are not maintainable against the order, which has been passed under Order 21 Rule 97 and not under Order 21 Rule 98 or 100 of the Code. 5. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the orders admitting the appeals, need to be quashed. 6. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the plea is being taken on behalf of the petitioners that the executing court did not find any ground for registering the miscellaneous case, but from the order passed by the executing court, it would appear that he has even touched the merit of the case. 7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the executing court may have recorded while dealing with the matter relating to the title of the party, but in fact, he has not found the case maintainable even for registering it as a miscellaneous case. 8. Since, the appeals have been admitted and the question, which has to be decided by the Court as to whether appeals are maintainable or not, I am not interfering with the order under which the appeals have been admitted. However, this plea would always be available to the decree holders that the appeals preferred by the Commissioner, Hazaribagh Nagar Parishad, is not maintainable. 9. Under the circumstances, all the aforesaid four applications are being disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to raise this issue before the District Judge, relating to maintainability of the miscellaneous appeals. If it is raised, the same be decided within three months as much time has been consumed in fighting out the litigation which pertains to the matter relating to eviction. 10. With these observations, all these applications stand disposed of.