Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Rajendra Nath Sinha ( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : this appeal has been preferred against rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed by a Tribunal constituted under Motor vehicle Act, 1988. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing Mr. Mahato, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, and after going through provisions contained in Motor Vehicles act, 1988 and Rules framed thereunder, we find that although by virtue of rule 343 procedure provided in Order 9 is made applicable to Claim Tribunal, but for that reason rejection of an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the code will not be made applicable by taking aid of Section 104 read with order 43 Rule 1 of the Code. It is now a settled position of law that provision of appeal is a creature of statute and under the Motor Vehicles Act, only order of the Claim Tribunal that has been made appealable is the one indicated in section 173 of the Act. Undisputedly, this appeal is not against an award so as to attract the provision of Section 173 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE law is equally settled that even if by taking aid of Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, some procedural part of the Code of Civil procedure are made applicable to a miscellaneous proceeding by virtue of such provision, the provision of appeal which is a substantive right cannot be made applicable. ( 4 ) IN this connection, reference may be made to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Osmania v. Sagarmal reported in AIR 1965 sc at page 798 wherein in the middle of paragraph 7 the following observation was made by Supreme Court : "section 141 makes applicable to other proceedings only those provisions of the Code which deal with procedure and not those which deal with subs'tantive right". ( 5 ) THEREFORE, against an order rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code by Claims Tribunal, an appeal is not maintainable. We, thus, dismiss the appeal on that ground alone. ( 6 ) WE make it clear that we have not gone into the merit. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, against an order rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code by Claims Tribunal, an appeal is not maintainable. We, thus, dismiss the appeal on that ground alone. ( 6 ) WE make it clear that we have not gone into the merit. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant is at liberty to take back the certified copy of the order impugned on furnishing a xerox copy thereof.