JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - Having heard learned counsel and pressed the order of the court below as well as the judgment in appeal as also the plaint and written statement in original Suit No. 5 of 1981 I am satisfied that the appellant has no case at all in this appeal. In the original Suit No. 5 of 1981 the plaintiff Keshav Prasad filed a suit against Madan and Smt. Lakshmi Devi, defendant no. 5, for cancellation of sale deed dated 5th August, 1980. This suit was decreed by the trial court. It is significant to note that Smt. Lakshmi Devi had filed a written statement almost admitting the claim of the plaintiff, Keshav Prasad. The appeal filed by Madan was allowed and the decree passed by the trial court against Madan and Smt. Lakshmi Devi was set aside. Smt. Lakshmi Devi has filed the present appeal seeking relief for restoration of the appeal as it proceeded ex parte against her. The application under Order 41 Rule 21 has been rejected by the court below and the appeal has been filed against that order. 2. The court below has given cogent reasons for rejecting the application. I further find cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal. Since the decree in the suit has been set aside into to, the defendant, Smt. Lakshmi Devi could have no grievance. She would only be interested if she was interested in the interest of the plaintiff, Keshav Prasad. The fact that she almost admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the fact that she has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 21 for restoration of the appeal indicates the above. In my opinion she does not suffer at all in setting aside the decree and she cannot be said to be a party aggrieved. This appeal is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.