Judgment :- This revision petition is not maintainable. It is against an order rejecting application to set aside a Court auction sale without numbering it. When the office raised objection as to the maintainability, learned counsel made an endorsement to the effect the petition in the Court below would fall under Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure therefore, it was revisable. Secondly, the learned counsel raised the contention that petition was rejected by the Court below and it was not dismissed. According to him, only there is a dismissal of a petition, an appeal will lie and otherwise revision is the only remedy. 2. Taking the second contention first, it is seen from O.43, Rule 1(j) of the Code of Procedure that an order under Rule 72 or Rule 92 of O.21, Code of Civil Procedure setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale, is made appealable. In this case, the order is one of rejection of the application even at the threshold. That certainly amount in law to refusal though it is one of rejection in form. The rule refer to ‘dismissal’ or ‘rejection’. Hence, the expression ‘refusing’ to set aside the sale cover the ‘rejection’ of the application without numbering the same and taking it on. 3. It is seen from the records that though the application was not numbered formally, sides were heard by the Court below. Even when the application was filed, a copy served on the advocate for the first respondent/decree-holder, who made an endorsement acknowledging receipt of copy and prayed for time to file counter. The application on 12.9.1990. Thereafter, it was being adjourned from time to time and ultimately heard on 1.7.1991 and the Court passed orders after hearing both sides. Hence, there substance in the contention that the application not having been numbered by the below, the order passed by the court below is a revisable one and not appealable O.43, Rule l(j) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The other contention that Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invoked petitioner has no merit whatever. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner set aside the sale. There is no averment whatever in the petition to bring it under Sec.47 the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The other contention that Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was invoked petitioner has no merit whatever. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner set aside the sale. There is no averment whatever in the petition to bring it under Sec.47 the Code of Civil Procedure. Merely quoting Sec.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the will not help the petitioner to say that the matter as governed by Sec.47 of the Though contentions are raised that the sale was in violation of the provisions of O.21, 72-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, even that provision was not quoted by the petitioner the petition. 5. The only remedy of the petitioner is to file an appeal in the District Court as the value the suit was less than Rs.30,000. 6. The office is directed to return the papers to learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. It is open to the petitioner to present an appeal in the appropriate Court. will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.