ORDER : These Civil Revision Petitions arising out of orders passed in two execution applications in an execution petition filed by first respondents in both petitions in E.P.No.18 of 2008 in O.S.No.14 of 2008 dated 09.07.2015 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, can be disposed of by common order wherein and whereby claim petitions filed by first respondents in the civil revision petitions under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 and Section 151 CPC allowed by the Court below. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for respondents would submit that revision petition is not maintainable against the orders passed by the Court below in a petition filed under Section 47 read with Order XXI Rules 97, 98, 101 and Section 151 CPC in view of ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda, 2004(6) ALD 175 (FB). For which, learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitions can be converted as first appeals, which also permissible under law. This Court proceeded to hear both sides on the point that whether revision petition can be converted into first appeal? 3. The learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioners would submit that grounds on which first appeal has to be filed are similar to the grounds which they mentioned in the revision petition and it is permissible under law to convert civil revision petition into first appeal. He relied on following precedent law: (1) Om Prakash and Others – Appellants Vs. Dwarka Prasad and Others - Respondents, MANU/MP/0442/2004 = AIR 2005 MP 40 wherein it is held that revision could be converted into appeal suit if substantial question of law exists and if the same is filed within prescribed time limit. (2) Narendra Kumar Mehta – Appellant Vs. Smt.Suraj Mehta -Respondent, AIR 1982 AP 100 wherein it is held that when there is no provision for filing appeals, High Court may exercise its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code and treat the appeals as revisions. (3) The Reliable Water Supply Service of India - Appellants Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others - Respondents, AIR 1971 SC 2083 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed that High Court was right in converting the appeal into a revision. (4) Bahori – Applicant Vs. (3) The Reliable Water Supply Service of India - Appellants Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others - Respondents, AIR 1971 SC 2083 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed that High Court was right in converting the appeal into a revision. (4) Bahori – Applicant Vs. Vidya Ra – Opposite Party, AIR 1978 ALLAHABAD 299 wherein it is held that there is no specific provision for conversion of an appeal into a revision as vice versa. Consequently, the exercise of power has to be only under the provisions of Section 151 of CPC. The inherent powers of the Court permit the Court to make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends of justice. The power is undoubtedly discretionary and is to be exercised in a proper case. If the interest of justice requires the passing of such an order or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Court is fully justified in passing of an order under this provision. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that there is specific provision for filing appeals before the Court under Section 96 and Order XLI of Civil Procedure Code, due to that when civil revision petition is filed, it is not permissible to convert the same into first appeal and it has to be looked into whether it is filed within time. He relied on following decisions: (1) Order of this Court in C.R.P.No.21297 of 2017, wherein this Court after accepting the representation of revision petitioner therein and also after considering Order 43 Rule 1(ja) of Civil Procedure Code permitted to file Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by giving benefit under Section 14 of Limitation Act, but not converted civil revision petition into first appeal. (2) M/s.Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd – Appellant Vs. Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) I, Sales Tax, Kanpur Range, Kanpur and another - Respondents, AIR 1968 Supreme Court 488 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court while discussing precedent law held that even under Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the expressions “appeal” and “memorandum of appeal” are used to denote two distinct things. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon, the word “appeal” is defined as the judicial examination of the decision by a higher Court of the decision of an inferior Court. The appeal is the judicial examination; the memorandum of appeal contains the grounds on which the judicial examination is invited. In Wharton’s Law Lexicon, the word “appeal” is defined as the judicial examination of the decision by a higher Court of the decision of an inferior Court. The appeal is the judicial examination; the memorandum of appeal contains the grounds on which the judicial examination is invited. For purposes of limitation and for purposes of the rules of the Court it is required that a written memorandum of appeal shall be filed. (3) Vishesh Kumar – Appellant Vs. Shanti Prasad-Respondent, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 892 wherein it is held that petition filed under Section 115 CPC cannot be converted into one under Article 227 of Constitution of India and it is also held that a revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is a separate and distinct proceedings from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. We are unable to accept that prayer. A revision petition under Section 115 CPC is a separate and distinct proceedings from a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, and one cannot be identified with the other. (4) Shiv Shakti Co.op. Housing Society, Nagpur – Appellant Vs. M/s. Swaraj Developers and others - Respondents, AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2434 wherein it is explained powers of the Court under Section 115 CPC prior and subsequent to amendment of Civil Procedure Code. It is held that right of appeal is a substantive right, but there is no such substantive right in making an application under Section 115 CPC. He prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions. 5. In view of rival submissions, now point that emerges for consideration by this Court is: Whether Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC can be converted as appeal suits? 6. He prays to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions. 5. In view of rival submissions, now point that emerges for consideration by this Court is: Whether Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 CPC can be converted as appeal suits? 6. POINT: Before going to the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Section 115 CPC and Order 41 CPC, which reads as under: “Section 115: Revision (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case, which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such Order in the case as it thinks fit: 1[Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.] (2) The High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. 1[(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court.] Explanation.-In this section, the expression "any case which has been decided" includes any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.” Order 41: "Form of appeal, What to accompany memorandum" (1) Every appeal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or his pleader and presented to the Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. The memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of Judgment: Provided that where two or more suits have been tried together and a common Judgment has been delivered therefor and two or more appeals are filed against any decree covered by that Judgment, whether by the same appellant or by different appellants, the Appellate Court may dispense with the filing of more than one copy of the Judgment. (2) Contents of memorandum- The memorandum shall set forth, concisely and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection to the decree appealed from without any argument or narrative; and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively. (3) Where the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit.” 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner herein is decree-holder, who filed execution petition wherein first respondents filed claim petitions under Section 47 read with Order 21 Rules, 97, 98 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure, those are allowed. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society’s case relied on by learned counsel for the respondent (referred supra) categorically held that first aspect that has to be considered is the respective scope of appeal and revision. It is fairly a well settled position of law that the right of appeal is a substantive right. But there is no such substantive right in making an application under Section 115 CPC, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court explained the scope of Sections 96 and 100 CPC and Order 41 CPC and also Section 115 CPC. Even Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishesh Kumar’s case (referred supra) held that petition filed under Section 115 CPC cannot be converted into petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Hon’ble Apex Court (Full Bench) in M/s.Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd’s case (referred supra) explained what should be contained in appeal as per Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code and Scope of Order 41 CPC. The Hon’ble Apex Court (Full Bench) in M/s.Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd’s case (referred supra) explained what should be contained in appeal as per Order 41 of Civil Procedure Code and Scope of Order 41 CPC. The Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy’s case (referred supra) while examining in detail with regard to maintainability of civil revision petition against the orders passed under Order 21 Rule 58(4), 98 and 100 of Civil Procedure Code held that :- “a) Against the orders passed under Rule 58(3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C. regular appeals under Section 96 and not miscellaneous appeals under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CP.C. are maintainable and that the judgment of this Court in B. Nookaraju Vs. M.S.N.Charities( AIR 1994 AP 334 ) does not represent the correct position of law. b) The Court fee payable on such appeals shall be the one calculated in accordance with Articles 11(i) or 3(i) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act, as the case may be read with Section 49 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. c) A second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is maintainable against an order passed in an appeal, arising out of order passed under Rule 58(3) or Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C.” 9. In the above referred case, Full Bench of this Court not converted the Civil Revision Petition into appeal, but dismissed the revision petition as it is not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioners therein to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 96 CPC against the orders of the executing Court duly availing the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 10. Though learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioners would submit that as per ratio laid down by Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court converting the revision petition into first appeal is permissible, in view of ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy’s case (referred supra), this Court unable to follow the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court. The ratio laid down in other two decisions relied on by learned Senior Counsel are not pertaining to conversion of civil revision petitions into appeal suits, but those are pertaining to converting the appeal into revision. The ratio laid down in other two decisions relied on by learned Senior Counsel are not pertaining to conversion of civil revision petitions into appeal suits, but those are pertaining to converting the appeal into revision. As Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s.Lakshmiratan Engineering Works Ltd’s case (referred supra) and Shiv Shakti Co.op. Housing Society, Nagpur’s case (referred supra) explained the distinction between first appeal under Section 96 and second appeal under Section 100 CPC with that of Section 115 CPC, this Court is unable to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel for revision petitioners that it is permissible to convert civil revision petition into first appeal. The scope of consideration of appeal suit, which is statutory right is entirely different from scope of consideration of civil revision petition. It cannot be equated with each other in view of language employed in both provisions and also in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred decisions. Therefore, this Court is of an opinion that it is not permissible to convert the Civil Revision Petitions into Appeal Suits. 11. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and petitioners shall be entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 96 CPC against the orders of executing Court in E.A.No.4 of 2010 and E.A.No.5 of 2010 duly availing the benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in both the revision petitions, shall stand closed. The interim orders if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated.