Honble JAIN, J. – The petitioner has filed this appeal purporting to be under O.43, r.1 C.P.C. against the order dated 4.4.1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 68 of 1982 dismissing the restoration application filed by the petitioner in Civil Misc. Case No.37 of 1978. which was dismissed in default on 22.12.1981. (2). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that this appeal is not maintainable. According to him, there is a special provision contained in Sec.54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 providing for an appeal. Hence, the appeal could have been filed under Sec. 54 of the aforesaid Act and not under O.43, r.1 C.P.C. He has further contended that under Sec. 54, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from the Award or from any part of the Award of this Court and from any decree of the High Court on such appeal as aforesaid, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. Since the impugned order was only in respect of the application seeking restoration of the above reference, it was not a decree and, therefore, no appeal could have been filed against the above order. (3). In my opinion, the objection taken by the learned counsel for the respondents has got force. The impugned order was passed on the application seeking restoration of the reference that was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 22.12.1981. It is not a decree as defined in s. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, I hold that no appeal lies and the present appeal is not maintainable. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.