JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Despite service, none has come present on behalf of the sole respondent and as such, it is ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 2. By way of instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been laid to order dated 30.4.2019, passed by learned Additional District JudgeI, Mandi, H.P., in Civil Appeal No.37/2019, whereby an appeal having been filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'JD'), laying therein challenge to order dated 6.8.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.3, Mandi, H.P., in Execution Petition No.8/13/11, came to be dismissed. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that respondent-Bank after having obtained decree for recovery of Rs.1,31,255/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with monthly rests, filed an Execution Petition before the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division) Court No.3, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Initially, petitioner/JD put in appearance before the Executing Court, but thereafter since failed to appear in the Court despite repeated opportunities, he came to be proceeded against ex-parte. With a view to implement the judgment and decree sought to be executed in the execution proceedings, trial Court issued warrant of arrest against the petitioner/JD while exercising power under Order XXI Rule 11, 11-A, 30 etc., of CPC. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of warrant of arrest, petitioner/JD preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P, under Sections 104(h) of CPC, however fact remains that such appeal was dismissed, as a consequence of which, order dated 6.8.2014 passed by the learned Court below came to be upheld. In the aforesaid background, petitioner/JD has approached this Court in the instant proceedings. 5. Having carefully perused the reasoning assigned by the learned Court below while passing the impugned order, this Court finds no force in the argument of learned counsel representing the petitioner/JD that learned Court below has erred while passing the order dated 6.8.2014 because it is quite apparent from the record that despite there being repeated opportunities afforded to the petitioner/JD, he failed to put in appearance and as such, Court below had no option, but to proceed against him under Order XXI Rule 11, 11-A, 30 etc., of CPC. Moreover, there appears to be no illegality and infirmity in the finding returned by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Mandi that appeal under Section 104(h) of CPC is not maintainable, if order of arrest and detention is passed in the Execution proceedings. 6. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of provisions contained in section 104 of CPC herein:- "104.Orders from which appeal lies:-(1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders:- 4{***} 5(ff) an order under Section 35A;} 6(ffa) and order under Section 91 or Section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be;} (g) an order under Section 95; (h). An order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree." (I) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules; {Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause(ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made.} 7. Aforesaid provisions of law, especially Section 104(h) of CPC, clearly provides that person aggrieved with the issuance of order of arrest and detention can file appeal, but not in those cases where such orders of arrest and detention are passed in execution of the decree. Undisputedly, in the case at hand order of arrest and detention came to be issued in the execution proceedings filed by the respondent-Bank. 8. Consequently, in view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit along with pending applications, if any. Interim order, if any, is vacated.