Judgment :- 1. I had dismissed this appeal with costs on 17th October 1979. After the order was written the appellants' counsel requested that he be heard again and therefore I directed the matter to be re-posted this day as to be spoken to. Since the question to be decided in this appeal arises frequently, I think it necessary to write the following in modification of the order, dated 17th October 1979. 2. The plaintiffs in a suit for injunction are the appellants. An interim application was filed for an injunction before the trial court. That was dismissed. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 7 of 1979 filed against the said dismissal order is now pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trivandrum. Injunction Application No. 1344(a) was filed in the said Civil Miscellaneous Appeal again for an interim injunction. That was dismissed. Miscellaneous Appeal is against that order. 3. The maintainability of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII, rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure falls to be considered in this appeal. This appeal is seen filed under S.104 and Order XLIII, rule (r) of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Order XLIII provides for appeals against original orders and not against orders passed in appeal. To allow an appeal of this kind would be to go against the express provisions contained in S.104(2) Civil Procedure Code under which no appeal can be filed against any order passed in appeal. The appellants' counsel contended that Order XLIII provides for appeals against orders mentioned therein, be it passed in appeals or in suits. If this argument it to be accepted, the position would be that while there is no appeal against a final ordering Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, one is provided against an interim order. The anomaly is evident. While a party has no right of appeal to the Supreme Court from a Judgment in a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal rendered by this court he gets a right of appeal against an interlocutory order passed by this court dismissing an application for injunction when an appeal against the injunction is pending. To contend that an appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed in appeal would be to permit a second appeal against the original interlocutory order dismissing the injunction petition. To contend that an appeal lies against an interlocutory order passed in appeal would be to permit a second appeal against the original interlocutory order dismissing the injunction petition. S.104(2), Civil procedure Code reads as follows: "No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section." The words "in appeal' occurring in the section are very wide in their import. A careful reading of this section shows that it takes within its mischief all orders passed in appeal. 5. This question fell for consideration before this Court in Chellappan V. K. P, Varghese AIR. 1964 Ker. 23 where Madhavan Nair, J. held relying upon the decisions in Umatur Robab v. Mahadeo Prasad A1R. 1941 All. 338 and Cherian Lookose v. Narayana Pillai Gopala Pillai 1958 KLT. 829 that appeal against such an order was barred under S 104(2) Civil Procedure Code. To the same effect is the decision reported in Kalahastl v. P. C.M. Chetti AIR. 1975 Mad. 3 I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down in the above decisions. I hold that the appeal is barred under S.104(2) Civil Procedure Code. I dismiss the appeal with costs Dismissed.