JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, CJ. 1. Aggrieved against a partition decree passed by the trial court, the defendants went up in appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in the court of the Civil Judge, one Ram Chandra who was the respondent in that appeal died. The defendant-appellants filed an application for substitution which was opposed. The learned Civil Judge held that there was delay which had not been sufficiently explained. The substitution application was dismissed and the appeal was declared to have abated. Thereafter the defendant-appellants moved an application for setting aside the abatement. This was also dismissed by an order of 13th March, 1976. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed this First Appeal From Order in this Court. 2. At the hearing of the appeal before a learned single Judge, a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents that the appeal was not maintainable. In support reliance was placed upon a decision in Mt. Umatur Rabab v. Mahadeo Prasad, 1941 AWR (HC) 251 where it was observed that no appeal lies from an order dismissing an application for setting aside the abatement of an appeal. The learned single Judge hearing this appeal felt that this decision requires reconsideration. He accordingly referred the following question of law to a larger Bench:- "Whether an appeal is maintainable under the provisions of Order XLIII, Rule 1 (k) CPC against an order passed in an appeal by a district court refusing to set aside the abatement of an appeal." Order XXII CPC provides for substitution of heirs and legal representatives of existing parties and also for abatement of a suit in case no substitution application is filed or if filed, is dismissed. Rule 11 of Order XXII CPC provides that in the application of this order to appeals, so far as may be, the word 'plaintiff' shall be held to include an appellant, the word 'defendant' a "respondent" and the word "suit" and "appeal". Rule 11 makes it clear that the provisions of Order XXII CPC are equally applicable to appeals. 3. Order XLIII CPC provides for an appeal against certain orders as provided by section 104 CPC. Under clause (k) of this order, an appeal lies against an order under Rule 9 of Order XXII CPC refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. 4. Clause (k) refers to an order passed under Rule 9 of Order XXII. Order XLIII CPC provides for an appeal against certain orders as provided by section 104 CPC. Under clause (k) of this order, an appeal lies against an order under Rule 9 of Order XXII CPC refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. 4. Clause (k) refers to an order passed under Rule 9 of Order XXII. Order XXII. Rule 9 refers to an order of abatement of a suit. In view of Rule 11 of Order XXII, the provisions of Rule 9 are applicable to an appeal. An order of abatement or dismissal of an appeal can validly be passed under Rule 9. Clause (k) of Order XLIII, Rule 1, however, refers to a "suit". It is well settled that an appeal is continuation or rehearing of a suit-Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, AIR 1957 SC 540 . In case of an appeal against the decree deciding a suit, the appeal is in law a rehearing of the suit, such an appeal is co-extensive with a suit. It should be included in the terra "suit". In our opinion the term "suit" has been used in clause (k) of Order XLIII, Rule 1 CPC in that sense. An appeal against an order passed in a suit stands on a different footing. A miscellaneous appeal against an order passed before or after the disposal of the suit has no connection or relation with the suit itself. Such an appeal cannot be equated with the suit. For this reason the term "suit" may not include a miscellaneous appeal. 5. The decision in Mt. Umatur Robab is distinguishable. There an ex parte decree was passed. An application for its setting aside was dismissed. An appeal was filed against that miscellaneous order of dismissal of the application. During the pendency of that appeal a party thereto died. The appeal abated. An application for setting aside the abatement was dismissed. The question was whether such an order was appealable. Now Section 104 (2) CPC expressly bars a second appeal against a miscellaneous order. The learned single Judge deciding that case, however, went on to consider the question whether the word 'suit' occurring in clause (k) of Order XLIII, Rule 1 could be construed so as to include an appeal. He distinguished between a regular appeal against a decree and a miscellaneous appeal against an order filed under order XLIII. The learned single Judge deciding that case, however, went on to consider the question whether the word 'suit' occurring in clause (k) of Order XLIII, Rule 1 could be construed so as to include an appeal. He distinguished between a regular appeal against a decree and a miscellaneous appeal against an order filed under order XLIII. He observed as follows:- "It is true that by reason of Rule 11 of Order XXII the word 'suit' in Rule 9 of that order includes an appeal, but we are not here concerned with an application to set aside the abatement of an appeal." He posed the question that was before him for consideration, thus:-"The question for consideration is whether there is a right of appeal against an order passed on such an application in an appeal from an order." The learned Judge distinguished between an appeal against the decree deciding a suit and an appeal against an interlocutory order passed either before or after disposal of a suit. Though the learned Judge did not mention it but the reason is obvious. In the former case, the appeal is a continuation of the suit and so the term 'suit' will include an appeal, though in the latter case it will not. So understood, the decision lays down correct law. 6. The view that appeal to us seems to be in conformity with the opinion of Patna High Court in Ram Ranbijaya Prasad Singh v. Madho Turha AIR 1939 Patna 623 and of Madras High Court in Raju Mudali v. Chinnaraju Naidu, AIR 1941 Madras 51. We are unable to agree with the contrary opinion expressed in Akkas Mia v. Abdul Aziz Bepari, AIR 1929 Calcutta 532. Our answer to this question referred is that an appeal against an order refusing to set aside the abatement of a regular appeal is maintainable under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (k) CPC. 7. Let the papers be returned to the learned single Judge with this opinion and answer. ---- Question answered.