JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. 1. This revisional application is directed against order September 4, 2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Alipore, District-24 Parganas in Civil Revision Case No. 507 of 2001 thereby dismissing a revisional application under section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure as not maintainable. 2. There is no dispute that one Surendra Saraf was appointed as receiver in respect of the suit property on November 27, 2000 vide Order No. 221. The present petitioner subsequently filed an application for cancellation of appointment of the said Surendra Saraf as receiver by filing an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The learned trial Judge by Order No. 233 dated August 24, 2001 rejected the said prayer of the present petitioner. 4. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred the aforesaid revisional application under section 115A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the learned District Judge and by the order impugned in this application the learned District Judge has dismissed such revisional application holding that the appropriate remedy of the petitioner lies by filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not dispute the proposition of law that an order refusing to recall an order appointing a person as receiver is an appealable one under Order 43 Rule 1(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure. But Mr. Roychowdhury contends that his client having filed the application for recall of the order appointing Surendra Saraf on the allegation of fraud, the rejection of such an application will not come within the purview of Order 43 Rule l(s) of the Code of Civil Procedure. In other words, Mr. Roychowdhury submits that if fraud is alleged while praying for recall of an order appointing a receiver, in such a case, the party applying for recall really asked the Court to exercise inherent power. Therefore, according to Mr. Roychowdhury, the order impugned should be treated as one rejecting an application under section151 of the Code and in such a case, a revision lies against rejection of such an application. 6. Therefore, according to Mr. Roychowdhury, the order impugned should be treated as one rejecting an application under section151 of the Code and in such a case, a revision lies against rejection of such an application. 6. Although, there were conflicting decisions of this court as regards scope of an appeal against order refusing to cancel an order appointing an existing receiver, after the decision of the Federal Court in the case of Rayarappan vs. Madhui Anna, reported in AIR 1950 FC page 140, such question has been settled. It is now settled that even an order refusing to remove an existing receiver by a court comes within the purview of Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code and, therefore, such order is appealable under Order 43 Rule l(s) of the Code. Merely because a party asked the court to recall earlier appointment on the ground of fraud, but the court refused to accept such contention, such fact will not alter the position in any way. In my view, for the purpose of determining the higher forum against any order passed by a court, it is the nature of the order that is decisive. The ultimate order passed by the learned trial Judge refusing to recall earlier appointment of Surendra Saraf clearly comes under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code. Therefore, the ground upon which prayer for recall of the earlier order was made, was immaterial for the purpose of deciding the higher forum. As pointed out by a Division Bench of this court in the case of P.R. Sarkar vs. S.R. Sarkar, reported in 71 CWN page 548, the provision of Order 43 Rule 1(s) is attracted against any order passed under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Code and the Division Bench emphasized on the word ‘under'. "which", according to the Division Bench, "makes the sing". (see paragraph 199 of the judgment). Therefore, the learned District Judge rightly held that the order refusing to recall appointment of Surendra Saraf was an appealable one. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury next contended that in such a case it was the duty of the learned District Judge to convert the said revision to an appeal as the appeal was preferred within one month from the date of passing of the order impugned. 7. Mr. Roychowdhury next contended that in such a case it was the duty of the learned District Judge to convert the said revision to an appeal as the appeal was preferred within one month from the date of passing of the order impugned. I am afraid, such contention is not tenable in view of the fact that the suit out of which the said order arises was valued at Rs.2,50,000/- and as such no appeal was maintainable before the learned District Judge. Such being the position, no question of converting the said revision to an appeal arises. Mr. Roychowdhury lastly points out that in the last line in the order impugned the learned District Judge recorded the following sentence:- "Hence ordered that the appeal be and the same is rejected on contest". 8. By pointing out the aforesaid sentence, Mr. Roychowdhury contends that the learned District Judge could not dismiss the said revisional application by treating the same as an appeal. It is apparent that the incorporation of the word 'appeal' was a typographical mistake in the body of the order. He has clearly mentioned that revision was not maintainable. Moreover, the learned District Judge had no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain such appeal. Be that as it may, I make it clear that by the order impugned, the learned District Judge has merely dismissed the said revisional application as not maintainable without going into merit. With the above observations the revisional application is dismissed. No costs. Revisional application dismissed.