JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) By means of present second appeal, defendants/Judgment Debtor/appellants seek to set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2014, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 36 of 2012, titled as Thakur Singh and others vs Bhimsen and other, as also the judgment and order dated 10.02.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Civil Execution no. 02 of 2009, captioned as Bhimsen vs Thakur Singh and others. 2. Plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is the decree-holder in the instant case and the second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.08.2014, passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and respondents, following substantial question of law is framed in present second appeal: “Whether executing court can execute the decree in part or can it only be executed as a whole?” 4. On the last day of hearing, learned counsel for the parties stated that no lower court record is required and the second appeal may be disposed of on the basis of certified copies already made available on record. In view of above submission, this Court proceeds to decide present second appeal on the basis of documents already available on record. 5. Plaintiff no. 1/respondent no. 1 filed an O.S. against the predecessor-in-interest of appellants and respondent no. 2 for specific performance of an agreement to sell the immovable property. The said suit was decreed by the trial court. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred first appeal before learned District Judge, which was dismissed. Still aggrieved against the same, defendants preferred second appeal, which too was dismissed by this Court. 6. When the plaintiff/decree-holder/respondent no. 1 filed execution case no. 02 of 2009, titled as Bhimsen vs Thakur Singh and others before learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, the executing court partly allowed the objections under Section 47 C.P.C. and directed the decree-holder to place the draft sale deed in the executing court within 15 days and decree-holder was also directed to pay the balance amount to the judgment debtor or else to deposit the same in the court to facilitate the execution of sale deed. Such an order was passed on 10.02.2012. Such an order was passed on 10.02.2012. Aggrieved against the same, defendant/judgment debtor/ appellant preferred a civil revision, which was converted into Misc. Civil Appeal and was decided on 19.08.2014 by learned Addl. District Judge, Kashipur, which judgment is under challenge in this second appeal. Learned lower appellate court upheld the decision of the executing court. 7. Although there appears to be no illegality in the orders of the courts below, in as much as no law prohibits the executing court to execute the decree in part, the misc. civil appeal filed against the impugned orders appears to be not maintainable. Same view was expressed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the decision of Dhir Singh vs Peer Bux and another, AIR 1979 ALLAHABAD 22. Relevant paragraphs of said judgment are reproduced here-in-under: “Now a second appeal does not lie from an order passed on appeal under S. 104 reach with O. XLIII of the C.P.C. Nevertheless, this Court has jurisdiction to revise the order under S. 115 of the C.P.C.” “..…..Accordingly, although no appeal lies from the order of the Court of the Civil Judge, Bijnor, on appeal from the executing court’s order under O. XXI, R. 90, I consider the case to be a fit one for the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court under S. 115 of the C.P.C., and do in the exercise of those powers suo motu set aside the order of the Civil Judge, Bijnor in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1968 and restore the order of the Court of Munsif, Bijnor in Misc. Case no. 113 of 1966 of his Court…….” 8. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Orrisa High Court in the case of Ramai Ranjan Pati vs Mst. Sahanaj Fatima, 2004 AIHC 4695. Relevant paragraphs of said judgment are reproduced here-in-below for ready reference: “There was amendment to Section 2(2) of the Code by Act 104 of 1976. In view of that amendment, an adjudication on the application under “Section 47” of the Code has been excluded from the meaning of the term “decree”. Therefore, an order passed under Section 47 is no more a decree to be appealable in accordance with provision in Section 96 of the Code. It also does not come within the category of an appealable order, be it under Section 104 or Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, an order passed under Section 47 is no more a decree to be appealable in accordance with provision in Section 96 of the Code. It also does not come within the category of an appealable order, be it under Section 104 or Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code. Thereafter, an order passed in disposing of an application under Section 47 of the Code is not appealable. This aspect was considered against non-maintainability of appeal but maintainability of a Revision under Section 115 of the Code, in the case of Mst. Sarabi Agarwalla v. Haradhan Mohapatra, AIR 1982 Orissa 9. That view was also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dhusasan Nayak vs Dhadi Nayak, AIR 1983 5 Orissa 127. Thus, the legal position relating to non-appealability of an order passed under Section 47 of the Code is no more resintegra.” “It is the settled position of law that unless the statute provides a forum, mere act of consent of the parties does not confer jurisdiction on a Court……..” 9. There is no provision in Order XLIII for filing appeal against rejection of objections under Section 47 C.P.C. Nowhere in Order XLIII, it is provided that a Misc. Civil Appeal against the setting aside of objections under Section 47 of Cr.P.C. will be maintainable. 10. The word “decree” in sub-Section (2) of Section 2 means the following: “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include – (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation. –A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;” 11. Earlier, it also contained the words and figures “Section 47 or” which were omitted by Act no. 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final;” 11. Earlier, it also contained the words and figures “Section 47 or” which were omitted by Act no. 104 of 1976 w.e.f. 01.02.1977. It can, therefore, safely be concluded that an appeal is not maintainable against dismissal of the objections under Section 47 of C.P.C. 12. The substantial question of law is thus replied as follows: Since a Court can execute the decree either in part or in toto, therefore there is no illegality committed by the executing court and the lower appellate court, if the decree is executed only in part. 13. The second appeal has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. This is apart from the fact that the second appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable.