JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The appellants alongwith one Hanif son of Noor Mohammad were the defendants in the Civil Suit No. 19/1 of 93/92 filed by respondent Santokh Singh for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession over the suit and alleging himself as owner in possession thereof. The defendants had contested the suit and denied the claim of the plaintiff and pleaded that they have been in possession as owners. When the trial of the suit was at the last stage, the plaintiff filed application under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC for bringing on record the legal representatives of defendant Hanif, who had died in the meantime, after setting aside the abatement. The said application was not allowed by the trial Court by order dated 10.9.1999, as a result of which the suit of the plaintiff stood dismissed as abated. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before the District Judge, which was allowed by the impugned order dated 18.12.1999 and the case was remanded to the trial Court to decide it afresh after bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased defendant Hanif. The defendants have challenged this order by filing this appeal under Order 43 Rule l(u) CPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has raised preliminary objection that the present appeal is not maintainable under Order 43 Rule l(u) CPC as in the appeal before the District Judge, be could not pass appealable decree had he not remanded the case. According to learned Counsel only that order of remand is appealable which has been passed under Order 41 Rule 23 or 23-A and in which case appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate Court,. 3. Before dealing with this point we may refer to some other facts, which are relevant. These are that some of the defendants alongwith Hanif had also filed counter civil suit No. 77/1 of 91, inter alia, for injunction, which was consolidated with other suit and tried together. In the counter suit also after the death of Hanif, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record his legal representatives after setting aside the statement was filed, which met the same fate and was dismissed by the trial Court. In the counter suit also after the death of Hanif, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC for bringing on record his legal representatives after setting aside the statement was filed, which met the same fate and was dismissed by the trial Court. The defendants who were plaintiff in counter suit did not prefer appeal against the order of dismissal of the application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, however, they preferred cross-objections in the appeal filed by Santokh Singh, the plaintiff in other suit. These cross-objections were also dismissed by the common order, which is subject matter of this appeal but against the dismissal of the cross-objections the defendants have filed Civil Revision Petition No. 160 of 2000, which is pending in this Court. 4. Coming to the preliminary objection, reference to Order 43 Rule l(u) is necessary. It is:— "1. An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of Section 104, namely : (a)................................................................................................... (u) an order under Rule 23 (or Rule 23-A) of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the appellate court.” (Emphasis supplied) The very reading of this provision makes it clear that appeal against an order would lie under Order 43 Rule l(u) if the following conditions are fulfilled:— (i) By the order appealed against the case is remanded under Order 41 Rule 23 or Rule 23-A CPC; and (ii) Had the Appellate Court not remanded the case it would have passed appealable decree. 5. So far the case in hand is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the appeal filed by the plaintiff the appellate Court could not pass any decree and the only alternative with it was either to dismiss the appeal or in the event of allowing the appeal to pass the remand order so that the Civil Suit may be decided by the trial Court on merits. In fact the appeal before the District Judge was against the order dismissing the application under Order 23 Rule 4 CPC whereby abatement of the suit of the plaintiff was not set aside and legal representatives of one of the defendants, namely, Hanif were not brought on record. This order was appealable order under Order 43 Rule l(k) CPC. Accordingly, appeal was filed which has been allowed and case has been remanded for decision on merits. This order was appealable order under Order 43 Rule l(k) CPC. Accordingly, appeal was filed which has been allowed and case has been remanded for decision on merits. In the appeal there was no question of passing decree by the Appellate Court against which further appeal would lie. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to contest this legal position and to show that the preliminary objection is not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that the present appeal against the impugned order is not maintainable under Order 43 Rule l(u) CPC. 7. At this stage the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants has made a prayer that this appeal may be converted into Civil Revision Petition and may be decided alongwith Civil Revision Petition No. 160 of 2000 arising out of the common impugned order. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff has opposed this prayer and submitted that it will not be proper to convert this appeal into civil revision petition as the defendants may file separate revision petition if they have a right to do so. 8. After considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it will be in the interest of justice and fair play to convert this appeal into civil revision petition for which otherwise also there is no hurdle. Order accordingly. The Registry may register it as Civil Revision Petition and list it alongwith Civil Revision Petition No. 160 of 2000 before the appropriate Bench. This appeal is disposed of. No order as to cost. Appeal disposed of. -