ORDER : M. R. Shah, J. 1. The present Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant herein original applicant defendant under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the order dated 20th June, 2009 passed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh-1 dismissing Misc. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 filed by the appellant herein inter alia praying to condone the delay that has been caused in preferring an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 2. The appellant herein-original applicant-defendant had preferred the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code inter alia praying to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30th October, 2004 passed by learned 8th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Vadodara. There was a delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, the appellant herein preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 to condone the delay in preferring an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which came to be dismissed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara vide impugned order dated 20th June, 2009, against which, the appellant herein original applicant-defendant has preferred the present Appeal from Order under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant herein original applicant defendant was called upon to satisfy the Court with respect to maintainability of the present Appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application to condone the delay in preferring an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex-parte decree and to that Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the present Appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of Civil Procedure Code is maintainable against the order of dismissing the application to condone the delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Vimal Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant- original applicant-defendant has heavily relied upon the decision of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Laxmi Prasad Dubey v. Gulam Ali and others reported in AIR 2008 Chhattisgarh 24 in support of his submission that against the order passed by learned Trial Court dismissing the application to condone the delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree, the Appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable. By making above submission, it is requested to allow the present Appeal from Order. It is further submitted that if this Court is of the opinion that the present Appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned order rejecting the application to condone the delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex-parte decree, is not maintainable then the liberty may be reserved in favour of the appellant to challenge the same before the appropriate Court by way of appropriate proceedings. 5. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the present Appeal from Order has been preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order dated 20th June, 2009 passed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh-1 dismissing Misc. Civil Application No. 116 of 2008 filed by the appellant inter alia praying to condone the delay that has been caused in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is required to be noted that the present Appeal from Order as such not an Appeal from Order against the order passed by the learned Trial Court below application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code i.e. dismissing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an ex-parte decree. Considering Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, Appeal from Order is provided against the order rejecting an application preferred under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an ex parte decree. Considering Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, Appeal from Order is provided against the order rejecting an application preferred under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside an ex parte decree. Order 43, Rule 1(d) of Civil Procedure Code does not provide to prefer an Appeal from Order against the order rejecting the application to condone the delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the ex parte decree. Therefore, the Appeal from order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code against the order passed in application not condoning the delay in preferring an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, is not maintainable. 6. So far as decision of Chhattisgarh High Court relied upon by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in the case of Laxmi Prasad (supra) is concerned, on facts, the said decision is not of any assistance to the appellant. In the case before Chhattisgarh High Court, Appeal from Order was preferred under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the order of dismissal of an application for setting aside an ex parte decree following rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it appears that there was an order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for setting aside an ex-parte decree following rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, on facts of the present case, such decision is not of assistance to the appellant. This Court has its own doubt whether on rejection of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and not condoning the delay in preferring the application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code of that whether any further order dismissing application to set aside the ex parte decree can be passed or not. As such this Court is of the opinion that once delay is not condoned in preferring an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside ex parte decree, no further order is required to be passed in the application for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. 7. At this stage, the decision of Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Mamuda Khateen and others v. Beniyan Bibi and others reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 415 is required to be referred to. The Full Bench of Calcutta High Court has taken a view that order refusing to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is neither a decree nor an appealable order. However, the said order is revisable. 8. In view of the above, it is held that the present Appeal from Order under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned order dated 20th June, 2009 passed by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara below Exh-1 dismissing Misc. Civil Application No. 166 of 2008 in not condoning the delay in preferring the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable and, hence, the present Appeal from Order is dismissed as not maintainable. It will be open for the appellant to file appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court, which can be considered in accordance with law for which this Court has not expressed any opinion. 9. In view of dismissal of Appeal from Order as not maintainable, no order in the Civil Application. Rule is discharged. Appeal dismissed.