S.K.KESHOTE,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of revision petition and the impugned order.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the defendant-respondent Mr. J.P. Goyal raises preliminary objection regarding maintainability of revision petition. His submission is that the impugned order is appealable. Under the impugned order the application filed by plaintiff for setting aside the abatement of the suit has been dismissed and against that order appeal lies before the District Judge. The reference has been made in support of his contention to Order 43 Rule 1 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner in contra submitted that under the impugned order the application filed by plaintiff-petitioner under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC read with Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has been decided and that order is not appealable and the remedy is only of filing the revision petition.
(3.) TO appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for parties and to decide the point regarding maintainability of revision petition the facts of the case are to be briefly stated.;