Hon’ble Yatindra Singh, J.—The only question involved in this appeal at this stage is :

Whether an appeal or a revision is maintainable against the order passed in execution of ejectment decree passed by the Court of Small Causes on the objection filed by a third party.

It arises on the following facts.

The facts

2. The pedigree of Wahid (the Appellant), without the unnecessary names, is as follows :

Chunni

Ahmed Rahim Bux Mst. Sakko

Mohd. Umar Nabi Bux Other heirs

Bulle Rasoole Other heirs

(the judgment debtor)

Wahid

(the Appellant)

3. Nabi Bux and other heirs of Rahim Bux filed OS No. 118 of 1983 for declaration that they alongwith Mohd. Umar (who was also arrayed as defendant in this suit) were owners of the property in dispute. In this suit the other defendants were, Ahmed son of Chunni, Sita Ram, Ram Jiwan Lal Mishra, and Mohd. Anwar. This suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.2.1999. No proceeding for recalling this order or any further proceeding were taken in this suit.

4. Mohd. Anwar, (the defendant in OS 118 of 1983) (the plaintiff-respondent) filed JSCC suit No. 6 of 2000 against Rasoole son of Mohd. Umar (the judgment debtor) with the following allegations :

(i) The plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the property in dispute on the basis of the sale-deed dated 26.11.1980 executed by Ram Jiwan Lal Misra (one of the defendants in OS No. 118 of 1983);

(ii) Ahmad son of Chunni (one of the defendants in OS No. 118 of 1983) was tenant and he has illegally sub-let the premises to Rasoole.

On these allegations, he claimed decree for ejectment.

5. JSCC suit No. 6 of 2000 was decreed ex-parte on 30.4.2001. The plaintiff-respondent filed an application to execute the decree. It was numbered as execution case No. 13 of 2001. In this execution Nabi Bux (one of the plaintiff in OS No. 118 of 1983) filed objection in 2003. During pendency of this objection, Nabi Bux also filed OS No. 406 of 2003 for declaration that he is owner of the property in dispute. This suit is still pending.

6. The executing Court dismissed the objection filed by Nabi Bux on 19.10.2004. Nabi Bux filed WP No. 49116 of 2004 before this Court. It was dismissed on 24.5.2006. Against this order, he filed SLP No. 14477 of 2006 before the Supreme Court. It was also dismissed on 24.9.2007.

7. The execution case of the Plaintiff-respondent was numbered as execution case No. 13 of 2001. Wahid (the Appellant) was not party in JSCC suit No. 6 of 2000 but he is grand son of Mohd. Umar. It is relevant to point out that Mohd. Umar was the defendant in OS No. 118 of 1983, however, relief was also claimed in his favour in the suit. He filed objection in the execution case claiming himself to be owner of the property in dispute. It was numbered as Misc. case No. 27 of 2006. The execution case as well as Misc. case on the objection of the Appellant were transferred to the present Court by the District Judge on 17.12.2007. The objection filed by the Appellant was rejected on 11.1.2008, hence the present appeal.

The points for determination

8. I have heard Sri Manoj Misra for the Appellant and Sri A.N. Bhargava for the plaintiff-respondent. In order to answer the question involved in this appeal (mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment), it is necessary to resolve the following points :

(i) Whether the decree for ejectment can be executed by the Court of Small Causes.

(ii) Whether the impugned order has been passed by the Court of Small Causes or the regular Court.

(iii) Whether Order 21 Rule 103 or any other provision of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) provides for an appeal against the impugned order.

First point : Ejectment can be executed

9. Section 9 of the CPC declares that the Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature except the suits that are either expressly or impliedly barred. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (the PSCC Act) is one such Act that provides special procedure for cert