JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India from the judgment dated 03.01.2018 delivered in Civil Misc. Appeal No.04 of 2016 [Annexure-1 to this petition]. The petitioners filed the said appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.4 of 2016 in the court of the District Judge, Unokoti Judicial District, Kailashahar under Section 104 read with order 43 (k) of the CPC. By the judgment dated 03.01.2018, the said appeal has been dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Mr. D. Saha, learned counsel has submitted that the order dated 05.08.2016 is also under challenge in this petition. Be that as it may, the fundamental controversy from which this proceeding has sprung is rooted in the judgment dated 03.05.2016 delivered in Civil Misc. 22 of 2012 which was under challenge in the said miscellaneous appeal. The said proceeding in the executing court was instituted under Section 47 of the CPC read with Order 21 Rule 15 of the CPC on the ground that by exercising fraud the decree issued in Title Suit 47 of 2006 was shown to have been executed to the satisfaction of the decree-holder. The proceeding being Civil Misc 22 of 2012 was instituted by the decree-holder alleging that even though the petitioner No.1 in particular made an assurance to demolish the building constructed by the petitioners on the decretal land, but later, they refused to do that. That was a clear fraud and the execution court had taken up the issue of deciding whether there was fraud and that requires to be taken serious note of. Thus, at the first instance, order declaring the decree has been executed to the satisfaction of the decree-holder has been recalled and the execution proceeding being Execution Case No.02(T) of 2010 was restored to file for executing the said decree dated 21.09.2007 passed in TS 47 of 2006 de novo in the context. 4. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the proceeding under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be maintained at the behest of the decree-holder. The said proceeding is designed to be resorted to, by the judgment debtor and as such, the very proceeding was erroneous. It should have been shot down at the threshold. 4. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the proceeding under Section 47 of the CPC cannot be maintained at the behest of the decree-holder. The said proceeding is designed to be resorted to, by the judgment debtor and as such, the very proceeding was erroneous. It should have been shot down at the threshold. Even the Order 21 Rule 15 of the CPC does not empower the decretal court to restore the execution proceeding. In this regard, Mr. Saha, learned counsel is correct that those provisions do not empower the executing court to proceed for restoration. But when a fraud is shown to have been exercised on the proceeding of the court in respect of execution of the decree, the court can by exercising the power under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC may act to do justice. Mere wrong citation would not make the proceeding redundant unless substantively the proceeding is launched was not maintainable in law. That apart, nowhere the petitioners have submitted that they were not in possession of the decretal land. In the backdrop of the case, that is a relevant fact. That apart, the said judgment pursuant to which the decree was issued, has reached its finality. 5. On the contrary, the petitioner No.2 in the proceeding being Civil Misc.22 of 2012 has categorically made a statement that if the decretal land is surveyed or identified to ascertain whether any building constructed by her son is standing on the said decretal land or not, she will not have any objection. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to show any prejudice for restituting the execution proceeding. 6. Mr. Saha, learned counsel has further submitted that the judgment dated 03.01.2018 suffers non-application of mind inasmuch as Section 104 of the CPC empowers to carry out appeal against any order. The said submission is fallacious and it emanates from non-reading of Section-104 of the CPC. Section-104 of the CPC provides that an appeal shall lie from the orders, save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of the CPC or by any law for the time being in force and from no other orders. A catalogue of the orders which are challengeable by filing an appeal has been given immediately provided below sub-section (1) of Section-104 of the CPC. A catalogue of the orders which are challengeable by filing an appeal has been given immediately provided below sub-section (1) of Section-104 of the CPC. In the catalogue, there is no provision that the order passed in a proceeding where the fraud has been exercised and thus has frustrated the very execution proceeding and kept the execution proceeding incomplete can be appealed against. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.01.2018 for observing that the appeal was not maintainable. 7. The other order, as Mr. Saha, learned counsel has submitted, that has been challenged in this petition is the order dated 05.08.2016 passed in Exe 02(T) of 2010. This is a consequential order in terms of the order dated 03.05.2016 delivered in Civil Misc.22 of 2012 and hence, no illegality can be attributed in the said order. 8. Having observed thus, it shall follow that this petition is without any substance and as such, this petition stands dismissed. However in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.