JUDGMENT The revision has been filed against the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, in its order dated 20.9.93, whereby the trial Court has decided issue No. 1 (a) and 1 (b) in favour of the present petitioners and issue Nos. 2 and 3 against him. On the decision on issue No. 1 (a) and 1 (b), the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that suit was not maintainable and Kailash Gupta was not entitled to institute the suit. While deciding issue Nos. 2 and 3, the Court observed that the plaintiffs suit is not barred by limitation and the plaint has been filed on proper stamps. Being dissatisfied by the dismissal of the suit the plaintiffs filed the first appeal. The defendants also filed an application under Order 41, Rule 22, CPC in form of objection that the findings against issue Nos. 2 and 3 should have been recorded in favour of the defendants and suit should have been dismissed on the ground of the valuation, court fee and limitation. After about some time as per allegation in the revision, the petitioners being satisfied that the cross-objections were not maintainable and the finding could only be challenged by way of revision withdrew the cross-objections and filed the present revision petition, under section 115 CPC with an application under section 5, limitation Act for condonation of delay. Shri Qmaruddin, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that against the findings a revision only is a competent therefore, this revision deserves consideration. Placing reliance on 1964 SC 497, Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dillon, it was contended that when certain issues are decided the findings can be challenged in the revision petition. Further placing reliance on AIR 1996 MP 50 , Ashok Kohil v. Prakash Chand and others, it was contended that if ultimately the appeal is found to be not maintainable toe objections raised by the present petitioners would not be considered, therefore, this Court should exercise its jurisdiction. A regular appeal lies under section 96, CPC against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and not against the findings. 1964 SC 497, Major S.S. Khanna (Supra) is not an authority to contend that if on certain findings a suit has been dismissed, the findings recorded against the successful party can still be challenged by way of revision Order 41 Rule 22, CPC. 1964 SC 497, Major S.S. Khanna (Supra) is not an authority to contend that if on certain findings a suit has been dismissed, the findings recorded against the successful party can still be challenged by way of revision Order 41 Rule 22, CPC. Sub-Rule 1, explanation clearly provides that if a party is aggrieved by certain findings then in an appeal filed by the other side, it can always challenge the findings recorded against them and satisfy the Court that the findings should have been recorded in his favour and on the findings the suit should have been dismissed. I am unable to understand as to how after the dismissal of the suit the present revision would be maintainable. In 1964 SC 497, the Supreme Court has clearly held-that where a case is decided by interlocutory order holding that suit is not maintainable, it would be deemed to be a case decided in which no appeal lies. Meaning thereby that an appeal from the order direct and not appeal from the final order. In the instant case, the findings which are recorded against the present petitioners cannot be challenged before this Court because the suit of the plaintiffs had already been dismissed by the trial Court. In my opinion the revision is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.