Short Note : 1. At the hearing of this revision application the learned counsel for the non-applicant raised a preliminary objection that in view of dismissal of Civil Revision No. 623 of 1976 filed by the applicant against the non-applicant, the present revision application is not competent. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, contended that since the said application was dismissed on account of the applicant's non-appearance, there is no legal bar for this revision application being heard on merits. In my opinion, the preliminary objection raised by the non-applicant should prevail. Held : In the petition under Article 227, which was subsequently registered as Civil Revision, the applicant had contended that since neither an appeal under section 96 nor an appeal under O. 43, R. 1, CPC nor a revision application under section 115, CPC was competent against the impugned order dated 30-6-1976, the petitioner-applicant approached this Court under Article 227. The said petition was dated 18-10-1976 on which date also the applicant had filed the said revision application No. 623 of 1976. After the said petition under Article 227 was allowed to be registered and heard as a revision application, it was posted for hearing on admission on 10-2-1977, by which dated the revision application No. 623 of 1976 had already been dismissed on 28-10-1976. The applicant did not bring this fact of dismissal of his revision application No. 623 of 1976 to the notice of this Court when he was heard on admission on 10-2-1977 and this revision application was admitted for hearing. It is thus clear that on two occasions, i.e. once on 18-10-1976 and again on 10-2-1977 the applicant failed to disclose that a separate application has been filed by him and that the separately filed revision application has been dismissed for default and for want of prosecution. So long as the order of dismissal dated 28-10-1976 passed in Civil Revision No. 623 of 1976 is in force, the applicant cannot be heard on merits on this revision application, which is directed against the same order against which Civil Revision No. 623 of 1976 was directed. If the applicant felt that there was sufficient ground for his non appearance then he should have made an application for restoration of Civil Revision No. 623 of 1976, which was dismissed in default. Accordingly, in my opinion, the present revision application cannot be heard on merits. Revision dismissed.