Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139245 Court No. - 35 Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 788 of 2025 Appellant :- Rama Shankar (Deceased) And 3 Others Respondent :- Bhagwant Singh And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhushan Yadav Hon'ble Sandeep Jain,J. 1. Case called out in the revised list. None is present for the appellants. Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 01 of 2025 2. The exemption application is allowed. Order in Appeal 3. By way of the instant first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C., the appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C., Kanpur Dehat in Execution Case No. 08 of 2023 (Ramashankar Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others, whereby, the execution case has been dismissed by holding that Original Suit No. 325 of 1986 (Ramashankar and others Vs. Bhagwan Singh and others) was not decreed in accordance with the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 C.P.C., as such, the decree passed in the original suit is inexecutable. Against this impugned order, the decree holder has filed the instant first appeal. 4. It is apparent that under Section 96 C.P.C. only against a decree, first appeal can be filed. Similarly, under Section 104 and Order 43 C.P.C., the impugned order cannot be challenged. It is well settled that an appeal is statutory remedy and if the statute does not provide for filing an appeal in a matter, then no appeal can be filed in that case. Since, the impugned order does not fall within the definition of decree, it is not appealable under Section 96 C.P.C.. Further it is not an appealable order under Section 104 and Order 43 C.P.C.. 5. The High Court of Bombay in Laxman Dhondiba Tambe and others Vs. Ramdas Daji Ramane reported in 2017 SCC Online Bom 5948 has held as under: "5. By the said amendment of 1976, Sub Section (2) of Section 47 of the said Code was deleted. Therefore, an appeal against order of dismissing execution application was not maintainable. An appeal against an order passed dismissing an Execution Application is not maintainable under Sections 96 and 104 or under Order XLIII of the said Code. Unfortunately, the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to the issue of maintainability of the Appeal. It is well settled that an appeal is a creation of Statute. As the Appeal itself was not maintainable, the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the Appeal and to set aside the order of the executing Court. Only on this ground, the petition must succeed." 6. In view of the above settled position of law, against the impugned order, the remedy of first appeal is not available under C.P.C.. However, the impugned order is revisable. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 A. V. Singh Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad