Judgment : The plaintiff is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.183 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Karur, for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,477.85 on the basis of a mortgage executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff on 19. 1970. .2. In the written statement filed by the second defendant, he has stated that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the principal of Rs.5,110 with interest at 9 per cent per annum and on other grounds. 3. On the date of trial the plaintiff being absent, the suit was dismissed for default. The plaintiff has, therefore, filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment dismissing her suit. 4. In C.M.P.No.8766 of 1992 filed before this Court, the petitioner has stated briefly as follows: After the dismissal of the suit for default on 8. 1987, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit with a petition under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the said application in I.A.No.97 of 1979. The said application was dismissed by the court below. The petitioner, therefore, filed C.R.P.No.4251 of 1981 against the dismissal of the Interlocutory Application. When the civil revision petition came up before Ramanujam, J. The learned Judge directed the counsel for the petitioner to file an appeal against the dismissal of the suit O.S.No.183 of 1975. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this appeal. The learned Judge of this Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition No.4251 of 1981 directing the petitioner to pursue remedy in the appeal, inspite of the representation that the appeal might not lie against the dismissal of the suit for default. The question involved in this matter, namely, whether the trial court can dismiss the suit for default when the defendant had admitted a portion of the claim is correct in law and would amount to failure of exercise of jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal has to be treated as civil revision petitioner under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the above question. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that since the second defendant has confessed to the decree for an amount of Rs.5,110. Therefore, the appeal has to be treated as civil revision petitioner under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure for deciding the above question. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that since the second defendant has confessed to the decree for an amount of Rs.5,110. Even though the plaintiff and the counsel for the plaintiff were not present before the court below on the date of hearing the suit should not have been dismissed and the trial court should have passed decree for the amount for which the second defendant himself has agreed and, therefore, the plaintiff, has come forward with this appeal. .6. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the formal expression of adjudication of an order of dismissal for default cannot be considered as a decree and as such no appeal lies against the said adjudication and the appellant should have filed an application under 0.9, Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code to restore the suit which was dismissed for default and she cannot ask for setting aside the order of dismissal in the appeal which is not maintainable and she cannot ask for converting the appeal as civil revision petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would concede that the suit is dismissed for default and that no appeal will lie. But he would contend that when a civil revision petition has been filed against the order dismissing the application to condone the delay in filing an application for restoring the suit, the learned Judge of this Court has directed the revision petitioner to pursue her remedy in an appeal and that is why the appellant has filed this appeal and inspite of the representation that the appeal might not lie against the dismissal of the suit for default the learned Judge of this Court has directed the plaintiff to pursue her remedy in the appeal. The fact remains that the plaintiff has filed an application to restore the suit, which was dismissed on 8. 1987 against her, with an application for condoning the delay and when the application was dismissed, she preferred civil revision petition viz., C.R.P.No.4251 of 1981 and the same has also been dismissed. The fact remains that the plaintiff has filed an application to restore the suit, which was dismissed on 8. 1987 against her, with an application for condoning the delay and when the application was dismissed, she preferred civil revision petition viz., C.R.P.No.4251 of 1981 and the same has also been dismissed. The point raised by the appellant is that when the second defendant has confessed for a decree, opposing the suit claim, the court below should not have dismissed the suit for default and as such the dismissal would amount to failure of exercise of jurisdiction and, therefore, the question whether the dismissal of the suit is correct in law has to be considered in the appeal and when an appeal is not maintainable her remedy is only by way of filing of civil revision petition. In the written statement filed by the second defendant it is stated that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the principal of Rs.5,110 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum among other grounds and he had also confessed for judgment for that amount and has prayed for 15 months time for payment. .8. It is only under the above circumstances, the suit has been dismissed. It has been laid down in the decision reported in Calcutta Port Trust v. Shalimar Tar Products Limited, A.I.R. 1991 S.C 684, that the order of the court below in dismissing the entire plaint for non-prosecution, in a suit for arrears of rent, where the defendant conceded lower rent than claimed, is not proper and the suit should have been decreed at conceded rate. In the light of the above decision, I am also of the view that the dismissal of the entire suit by the court below, inspite of the second defendant confessing for lesser amount and seeking time for payment of the amount, is not proper. Here, we have to see, what is the remedy open to the plaintiff when the suit has been dismissed for default. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant since the suit is dismissed for default, it cannot be considered as a decree and, therefore, no appeal will lie. Here, we have to see, what is the remedy open to the plaintiff when the suit has been dismissed for default. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant since the suit is dismissed for default, it cannot be considered as a decree and, therefore, no appeal will lie. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that in cases where no appeal lies or an order passed by the court and when an appeal was taken on file mistakenly, the High Court has powers to covert the appeal into civil revision petition and hear the same. .9. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the following decisions: In Mamuda Khatoon and others v. Boniyan Bibi and others, A.I.R. 1976-Cal. 415 (F.B.), it has been laid down that where an order rejecting time-barred memorandum of appeal consequent on refusal to condone delay under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, is passed, it is neither a decree nor an appealable order and the said order however is revisable. In the decision reported in Union of India and another v. S.Mohinder Singh and others, A.I.R. 1979 All. 342 it has been held that where an order is passed under Sec.5 of the Arbitration Act, granting leave to party to revoke authority of appointed Arbitrator, the said order is not appealable under Sec.39 of the Arbitration Act and only revision will lie. It is also held in the above decision that when an application for permission to convert the appeal into a revision is filed, and considered, taking into account the matters of importance involved in the case, it is proper to allow this application and permit the appellant to convert his appeal into a revision. In Narendra Kumar Mehta v. Smt.SurajMehta,A.I.R. 1982 A.P. 100 at 104, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that in cases where no appeal lies against orders and interim orders, the High Court can treat the appeals as revisions, in view of the powers vested under Sec.115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The question that came up for consideration before their Lordships is whether the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and treat the appeal as revision when there is no appeal provided against the order under Sec.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The question that came up for consideration before their Lordships is whether the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and treat the appeal as revision when there is no appeal provided against the order under Sec.28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned Judges further held that Sec.115 of the Civil Procedure Code enables the High Court to exercise revisional jurisdiction in all civil matters pending or disposed of by a court subordinate to it, wherever that subordinate court, appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or fails to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, provided no appeal lies. 10. The ratio of the above three decisions makes it abundantly clear that where an appeal has been taken on file mistakenly, from an order against which no appeal will lie, the High Court has got powers to convert the same as a civil revision petition and hear the same to decide the facts of the case. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and in the light of the above decisions, I am of opinion that the appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the order of dismissal of the suit for default, when the second defendant confessed for a decree, can be converted into a civil revision petition and the matter can be decided on its merits. 12. In that view, I am of the opinion that C.M.P.No.8766 of 1922 is to be ordered as prayed for, and the appeal, A.S.No.422 of 1983 has to be converted into a civil revision petition. 13. In the result, the C.M.P.No.8766 of 1992 is ordered as prayed for. The appeal AS.No 422 of 1983 is directed to be converted into civil revision petition. Office is directed to make the necessary corrections in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal and other papers. No costs.