Short Note : On 1-8-1972 an application was filed by Jagdish Chandra Saxena, applicant No. 1 that deceased Parwati Bai had died he alone was entitled to be brought on record. The trial Court, vide the impugned order held that the application was barred by time; the right to sue did not survive to Krishna Chandra Saxena who was a co-plaintiff and while rejecting the application, ordered that the suit abates. Held: In this revision, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicants that the impugned order is not revisable but was appealable and, therefore, on this ground alone the revision deserves to be dismissed. There are ample authorities of this Court on this question wherein it has been consistently held that such an order is not revisable. Purshottamdas v. Devkaran Keshoji, AIR 1939 Nag. 39, Nandulal v. Mahashirprasad, AIR 1951, Nag. 269, Mathurabai and other v. Shridhar Trimbak Kanade, S.A. No. 98 of 1967 decided on 31-7-1973. Purshottamdas Sakalchand v. Deokaran Kesheoji and others, AIR 1939 Nag. 39, Baddulal Bhuramal and others v. Mahabirprasad, AIR 1951 Nag. 269, Niranjannath v. Afsal Hussain, AIR 1916 Lahore 245, Brij Jivanlal v. Shymalal, AIR 150 All. 57 relied on. Parmanand v. Kanbai, 1961 JLJ SN 317 distinguished. Revision dismissed.