ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. This petition is directed against judgment of the learned District Judge, Nagpur dismissing the petitioner’s appeal against an order of detention in civil prison passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umred under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Judge held that entry (r) under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, enumerates, an order under Rules 1, 2, 4, 10 or 11 of Order XXXIX, but it does not include Rule 2A. Rule 2A is, however, included in the amended Code of Civil Procedure, but because of the Bombay Amendment, according to the learned District Judge, an appeal against order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A would not be tenable. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, but did not have benefit of hearing learned counsel for the respondent who was not available though the matter was adjourned once. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court had considered the question of tenability of such an appeal in a judgment in Harivilas Vs. Viraf, reported at 1993 (II) Mh.L.J. 1435 . This Court had noted the omission of Rule 2A in entry (r) under Order XLIII Rule 1, but held that this omission is insignificant in view of the fact that an appeal against order detaining a person in civil prison is specifically provided for under Section 104(1)(h) of the Code, which reads as under : “104. orders from which appeal lies : (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders : (ff) .... (ffa) .... (g) ... (h) an order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree;” In view of this specific provision there can be no doubt that the appeal is tenable and the learned District Judge should have heard it. 4. In view of this, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. 4. In view of this, the petition is allowed. Impugned order is quashed and set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, who shall hear it and decide it on merits. 5. Till disposal of the appeal, interim orders passed by this Court shall remain in force. 6. In order to avoid confusion that has occurred on account of absence of reference to Rule 2A in Entry (r) in Order XLIII Rule 1 the Registry shall place the judgment of this Court, reported at 1993 (II) Mh.L.J. 1435 (Harivilas Vs. Viraf) before the appropriate committee for considering the amendment to the said Rule.