Judgment :- 1. The plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their right to a pathway and for certain consequential reliefs, are the revision petitioners. 2. The interim injunction granted wag made absolute by the trial court. The order making the interim injunction absolute, was passed ex parte. The respondents therefore filed I.A. 20/85 under Order IX R.13 CPC. to set aside the ex parte order. The petition was dismissed. The appeal taken therefrom was allowed by the judgment under attack. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the appeal is incompetent and if that be so, the judgment under challenge allowing the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. To appreciate this argument it is necessary to understand the content of S.141 CPC. This section provides that the procedure provided in the code in regard to suits shall be followed as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. It is clear from the language employed in this section that only the procedural provisions under the Code have been made applicable to other proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction and not those provisions which deal with substantive rights. Provisions conferring right to prefer appeals and other substantive rights are not mere matters of procedure and hence are not made applicable by this section. (See Kallianikutty Amma v. State of Kerala, 1974 KLT 107: AIR 1974 Ker.171, Thresia v. Xavier, 1976 KLT. 209: AIR 1977 Ker.118 (FB), and Usmanali Khan v. Sagar Mal, AIR 1965 SC 1798). 5. The petition under Order IX R.13 CPC. therefore is maintainable. There cannot be any dispute about it. That an order dismissing a petition under Order IX R.13 is appealable under Order XLIII R.1 is beyond dispute. Nonetheless, going by the above principle, the appeal, the respondents had filed against the order dismissing the application under Order IX R.13 was incompetent. If that be so, the judgment under challenge is liable to set aside. I accordingly set aside the same. 6. The CRP. is allowed. But in the circumstances no costs. The suit is of the year 1984, and therefore the same requires to be disposed of without further delay. If that be so, the judgment under challenge is liable to set aside. I accordingly set aside the same. 6. The CRP. is allowed. But in the circumstances no costs. The suit is of the year 1984, and therefore the same requires to be disposed of without further delay. The trial court therefore is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The records of the case will be transmitted to the trial court alongwith a copy of the order immediately.