JUDGMENT B. Upadhaya, J. - This is a Defendant's application in revision against an order passed by the Additional Munsif Meerut, vacating an order of dismissal passed under Order XI, Rule 21 Code of Civil Procedure 2. It appears that the Defendant served interrogatories which the Plaintiff was required to answer. An objection was taken by the Plaintiff that the interrogatories were irrelevant and vexatious and that he should not be required to answer them. Subsequently an application was made by the Defendant complaining that these Plaintiff has not answered the interrogatories and that the suit be dismissed. The learned Munsif passed an order on the 13th of March that these applications made by the Defendant and by the Plaintiff should be put up for orders on the 24th of March 1950 which was the date fixed for final hearing in the case. On that date the Plaintiff's counsel did not turn up in time and after waiting for more than 15 minutes the learned Munsif said that the Defendant had not taken any objection against the interrogatories as required by Order XI, Rule 6. He therefore, dismissed the suit for want of prosecution under Order XI, Rule 21 CPC The same day some time afterwards the Plaintiff's counsel appeared and made an application supported by an affidavit praying that the order of dismissal be set aside. The court passed an order vacating the order of dismissal and directed that the application be disposed of in the presence of parties on the 8th April 1950. On that date the case could not be taken up and was adjourned to the 6th of May 1950 when the court passed an order saying that by oversight it had not taken into consideration the application and objection relating to the interrogatories and before disposing of those applications it had passed the order of dismissal. The learned Munsif observed in that order that it appears from the order sheet that no question of dismissal of the suit under Order XXI, Rule II arose. He purporting to exercise his powers u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, thought it proper in the ends of justice to up hold the order vacating the order of dismissal and rejected the Defendant's application to maintain the dismissal. 3. He purporting to exercise his powers u/s 151, Code of Civil Procedure, thought it proper in the ends of justice to up hold the order vacating the order of dismissal and rejected the Defendant's application to maintain the dismissal. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant argues that an appeal lay under Order XLIII, Rule I from an order of dismissal under Order XI, Rule 21 CPC He contends that in the circumstances the court below could not have exercised any power u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. My attention has been invited to case Nageshar Prasad Vs. Gudri Lal Narain Das and Another a Division Bench decision of this Court and to two other cases, one of the Calcutta High Court Asutosh Ghosh and Another Vs. Indu Bhusan Ghose, AIR 1927 Cal 158 and another of the Nagpur High . Court in AIR 1947 236 (Nagpur) . The view taken in these decisions is that in the presonee of an express provision under court under which a party might seek his remedy it is not open to invite the court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Chander Bhan v. Lallu Singh AIR 1947 All. 343 a learned Judge of this Court took the same view and following it expressed the opinion that the only correct course open after a dismissal under Order XI, Rule 21 is to prefer an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Judge also expressed the view that interference u/s 151 of the CPC is not justified. 4. In this case it is obvious that when the learned Munsif dismissed the suit on the 24th March 1950 he did not pass an order rejecting the objections taken by the Plaintiff to the interrogatories and passed no order directing the Plaintiff to answer the interrogatories. The learned Counsel for the applicant contends that the order to answer the interrogatories had been passed in the very begining when the interrogatories were directed to be (sic) to the Plaintiff for answer. He further contends that the court has observed in its order dated 24-3 1950 that the Defendant has not taken any objection against the interrogatories as required by Order XI, Rule 6. He further contends that the court has observed in its order dated 24-3 1950 that the Defendant has not taken any objection against the interrogatories as required by Order XI, Rule 6. Learned Counsel argues that this observation means that after taking into consideration the objection filed by the plaint if the court took the view that it was not an objection as required by Rule 6 inasmuch as it was not in the form of an affidavit as required by the rules. Rule 6, of Order XI enables the answering party to object to any interrogatory on the ground that it is (sic) or irrelevant interrogatories and such objection may be taken in the affidavit in answer. The situation contemplated is one where the party required to answer the interrogatories does answer them but relating to any particular interrogatory he wishes to take an objection on the ground that that interrogatory is irrelevant or vexatious. This rule does not lay down that if the interrogatories are objected to en bloc the party concerned may not object to the other party's application relating to the interrogatories by means of an objection. I have considered the matter carefully and in my opinion the learned Munsif did not take into consideration the objection taken by the Plaintiff to the interrogatories on the 24th of March and passed no order thereon. He did not pass any order overruling the objections and directing the Plaintiff to answer as he did later on the 6th of May 1950. I have no reason to hold that the learned Munsif is not right when he, in his order dated the 6th of May, says that it was by over-sight that be omitted to take into consideration the Plaintiff's objection to interrogatories on the 24th of March 1950. In view of these facts it is clear that the learned Munsif would not have passed the order of dismissal on that day under Order XI, Rule 21 if he had considered the said applications on that date I have no reason to doubt that if an appeal had been preferred from the order of dismissal it would have been allowed. 5. The question yet remains as to whether the order which the learned Munsif purports to pass u/s 151 of the CPC was a proper order. 5. The question yet remains as to whether the order which the learned Munsif purports to pass u/s 151 of the CPC was a proper order. The law appears to be fairly well settled that where an appeal lies under Order XLIII, Rule I from an order of dismissal passed under Order XI, Rule 21 of the CPC the court is not competent to proceed u/s 151 of the CPC to vacate the order of dismissal. This order passed by the learned Munsif setting aside the order of dismissal, therefore, does not appear to be legally correct. 6. Faced with these two orders, both of them illegal the question now before me is as to whether in the exercise of my jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC I should maintain the first wrong order by setting aside the second wrong order. The position is that after he had made the first wrong order the learned Munsif by proceeding to make the second wrong order brought the parties to the original position in which they were. Setting aside the second order would have the result of confirming the first order which is to my mind clearly erroneous. 7. In the circumstances I do not feel justified in interfering with the decision taken in this case in the exercise of my powers u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application is, therefore, rejected. In the circumstances of the case the parties should bear their own costs.