JUDGEMENT : SAMVATSAR, J. This revision application is filed against an order rejecting the plaint under the provisions of O. 7, R. 11. An order rejecting a plaint under this provision is a decree and as such appealable. 2. Mr. Pande, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had preferred a revision application in this case because the order passed by the trial Court was passed in an arbitration proceeding. He submitted that an appeal could lie in such a case only if the order was one of those orders against which an appeal is specifically provided for by S. 39, Indian Arbitration Act. 3. Section 39, Indian Arbitration Act is as follows : An appeal shall lie from the following orders passed under this Act (and from no others) to the Court authorised by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the orders :- An order - (i) superseding an arbitration; (ii) on an award stated in the form of a special case; (iii) modifying or correcting an award; (iv) filing or refusing to file an arbitration agreement; (v) staying or refusing to stay legal proceedings where there is an arbitration agreement; (vi) setting aside or refusing to set aside an award........." 4. The order dated 16-7-1955 against which the present revision application is filed is not an order covered by any of these clauses and S. 39 cannot be used in this case. 5. Stress was laid by Mr. Pande on the wards "and from no others" and it was urged that the applicability of Civil Procedure Code relating to appeals was excluded by the Legislature by using these words. 6. I am unable to accept the contention raised by Mr. Pande. 7. The language of S. 39 itself indicates that its operation is confined to the orders passed under the provisions of that Act and is not intended to save orders passed under the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The words "and from no others" used in S. 39 refer to orders passed under the express provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and not to orders passed under other provisions of law, like Code of Civil Procedure. 8. The words "and from no others" used in S. 39 refer to orders passed under the express provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act and not to orders passed under other provisions of law, like Code of Civil Procedure. The present order is not an order passed under the Arbitration Act, but is an order passed under the provisions of O. 7 R. 11, Civil P. C. Section 39, Arbitration Act cannot be applied to such an order. 9. I am supported in this view of the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Sri Krishen v. Radha Kishen, 1952 All 652 (AIR V 39) (A). In that case an application was made to the court for setting aside an award under S. 33, Arbitration Act. On a certain day the applicant was absent and the Court exercising powers under O. 17 R. 3 dismissed it with costs. The plaintiff applicant applied for restoration but the application was rejected by the trial Court. The applicant thereupon filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the appellate Court holding that as the order was not covered by S. 39, Indian Arbitration Act no appeal lay against it. The plaintiff applicant filed a revision application to the High Court which was heard by the Division Bench. It was held by the learned Judges that the phrase "and from no others" refers to orders passed under the Act. It has no reference to appeals which the Civil Procedure Code provides from orders passed under the provisions of that Act. 10. I am in respectful agreement with the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and hold that the order against which this revision application is filed is an order which has the force of a decree and is appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure. The revision application is therefore misconceived. It, however, appears that the revision application was filed through a bona fide mistake. We therefore allow the application filed by the petitioner to convert it into an appeal. The revision application be shown as disposed of and the case may be registered as Civil First Appeal.