JUDGMENT A.K. Sharma, Member. - Heard the learned counsels for both the sides on the preliminary objection made by the lerned counsel for the respondent, namely, that first appeal to the Board from the order of the first appellate court was not provided for under Section 331 of the ZA and LR Act and that no appeal lay under Sec. 331(2) from an order passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule II of the ZA and LR Act. He referred to Order 43(1)(t) and said that the appeal provided against an order of refusal to readmit under Rule 9 of O. 41 or to rehear under R.21 of that order shall have to be that of the trial court and not of the first appellate court as provided for in column 4 of Schedule II of the ZA and LR Act. He said that the suit had been filed under Sec. 229-B and the order under appeal related to those proceedings. He argued that Section 331 (2) provided that appeal would lie only as provided in Sec. 331(3) and (4) and, as such, unless there was a specific provision that the appeal lay to the Board, it could not be presumed that the Board would hear the appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, replying to the preliminary objection, argued that the proceedings against which this appeal had been filed, did not fall in column 3 of Schedule II ZA and LR Act because it was a proceeding under O. 41, Rule 21, CPC for setting aside an ex parte order and for rehearing. He referred to Sec. 341 ZA and LR Act by which the provisions of the CPC had been made applicable in all cases where there was no specific provision made in the ZA and LR Act. He said that Sec. 331 had been erroneously mentioned in the memo of appeal and it should have been Section 341 and O. 43, R.(1), CPC and he added that this would not be material because the subject matter of the memorandum of appeal made the applicability of Sec. 341 self-evident. He said that Sec. 331 had been erroneously mentioned in the memo of appeal and it should have been Section 341 and O. 43, R.(1), CPC and he added that this would not be material because the subject matter of the memorandum of appeal made the applicability of Sec. 341 self-evident. He referred to O. 41, R. 21, whereby, if sufficient cause for being prevented from appearing was shown by the respondent the court could rehear the appeal on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it though fit to impose upon him and contended that under O. 43, R. 1(t), the appeal, i.e., first appeal lay and, therefore, the appeal was properly filed. He said that Order 41, related to appeals from original decrees and sub-clause (t) of Rule 1 of Order 43 referred to appeals from orders passed under Rules 19 and 21 of O. 41, CPC by a court of appeal refusing to admit or rehear. The appeal had therefore been properly filed. He further said that since an appeal lay from the order of the first appellate court under O. 43, R. 1(t) it could lie only to the Board. He also referred to the Note given in the end of the memo of appeal, that if an appeal did not lie, the present appeal be converted into a revision. In support he cited Ram Ashrey v. Ram Kripal 1974 R.D. (SC) 1. 3. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal, as was clear from the contents of the memo of appeal, purported to have been filed under Section 341 ZA and LR Act, and that it was just a mistake to have mentioned Sec. 331. It is clear from the ruling in 1974 R.D. (Suppl.) 1 cited by the learned counsel in support that this appeal is governed by Section 104 and Sec. 106 of the CPC read with Order 43, Rule 1(t). The forum for this appeal is not to be seen in Schedule II but in Sec. 106 CPC. 4. I, therefore, over-rule the preliminary objection and hold that the appeal is maintainable in the Board. The case will be heard on merits on November 21, 1978.