Bakshish Kaur, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 30.8.1996, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed only on the ground that it is not maintainable.
(2.) The facts which are not much in dispute are that on 17.8.1988 Gurdeep Kaur and other plaintiffs (now petitioners) (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs'), had filed a suit whereby they had challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1987 passed in civil suit No.360 of 1987 re: Om Parkash'and others v/s. Krishan Kaur, passed by Sh. P.K. Saini, the then Sub Judge, 1st Class, Fatehabad. The suit was contested, issues were framed and the case was at the stage of recording evidence when the suit was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure on account of no -appearance of the plaintiffs.
(3.) The plaintiff moved an application under Order 9, Rule 9, Code of Civil Procedure for the restoration of the suit. The said application was also dismissed. Since the trial court had not accepted the application of the petitioners for setting -aside the orders for restoration of the suit, therefore, they preferred an appeal. The learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order had dismissed the appeal only on the ground of maintainability saying that where an application for restoration is dismissed in default then the appeal under Order 43(b) of the Code is not maintainable.;