JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The suit between the parties was decided under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class Basti on 16-10-1980. Against the decree and judgment appeal was filed by Ram Pyare Singh, respondent in the present revision. He has not signed the Vakalatnama which was filed in the court of first appellate court. The appeal was admitted when the defect was noticed. The first appellate court allowed Ram Pyare Singh appellant who is opposite-party here to sign on the Vakalatnama on 29-10-1983 and passed order in detail after hearing the parties. Against that order of the first appellate court this revision has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist was present in the court on 10-4-1992 when the case was adjourned for 15-6-1992. He absented on 15-6-1992. The notice was issued even then to him and the revision was fixed today for hearing. The counsel failed to appear inspite of sufficient notice. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties appeared and argued that if the appeal was admitted any defect in that is curable under Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel also argued that the revisionist want to delay the proceeding, hence they are not appearing in the revision. 4. In my opinion the learned first appellate Court has not decided any dispute between the parties, hence nobody aggrieved by the order by which he allowed to sign the Vakalatnama no revision lies against such order, therefore, the revision is accordingly dismissed. Let the trial court's file should be sent to first appellate court for disposing appeal after giving notice to the parties.