Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.— Affidavit of service filed today in Court is taken on record. Mr. Lakshman Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and files vakalatnama, the same is also taken on record. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Nipendra Mishra, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1 and Mr. Lakshman Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.3.2013 whereby Civil Revision No. 158 of 2010 (Ram Adhar Vs. Jiyawan) was allowed and the order dated 26.9.2010 passed by the Trial Court allowing the application 4-C under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') was set aside. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner in which the Court fee of Rs. 1,000/- was paid at the time of institution of the case. The learned Trial Court while deciding the issue no. 2 vide order dated 23.2.2008 had fixed the valuation of suit as Rs. 5,000/- and had directed the petitioner-plaintiff to make necessary amendment within one week and take appropriate steps for making good the deficiency in Court fee. The petitioner could not take steps within time. The case was listed on 03.11.2008. On that date, the plaintiff was absent and in absence of petitioner-plaintiff, the learned Trial Court has rejected the suit observing that the petitioner-plaintiff has failed to take appropriate steps with respect to correction in the valuation of suit as directed earlier, as such, it is liable to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner had moved an application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code for restoration/recall of order. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2010 had allowed the application at the cost of Rs. 300/-. The opposite party no. 2 feeling aggrieved against the order dated 26.9.2010 had filed Civil Revision No. 158 of 2010. The revisional Court had allowed the revision and had set aside the order dated 26.9.2010. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.9.2010 had allowed the application at the cost of Rs. 300/-. The opposite party no. 2 feeling aggrieved against the order dated 26.9.2010 had filed Civil Revision No. 158 of 2010. The revisional Court had allowed the revision and had set aside the order dated 26.9.2010. Submission is that on 03.11.2008 the petitioner was absent and learned Trial Court has recorded the absence of petitioner in its order and, as such, it was to be treated as the order dismissing the suit in default, therefore, the application under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code was fully maintainable. The learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the said application. It is further submitted that the revisional Court has failed to appreciate that the order dated 03.11.2008 was passed ex-parte in absence of the plaintiff and, as such, it was required to be recalled. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. The order dated 03.11.2008, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to writ petition, indicates that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff has failed to take appropriate steps regarding the correction of valuation of the suit, hence it is liable to be rejected. The order dated 03.11.2008 can be said to have been passed under Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Code. For convenience Order VII Rule 11 (b) of the Code is produced below: "Order VII Plaint. Rule 11 Rejection of Plaint. - (a)................ (b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so." As such, the application preferred under Order IX Rule 4 of the Code was not maintainable. The learned Trial Court had wrongly allowed the said application vide order dated 26.9.2010. The learned revisional Court has rightly come to conclusion that the order dated 26.9.2010 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and, therefore, it should be set aside. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition as such is dismissed. However, it is to be observed that since order dated 03.11.2008 is appellable, the petitioner may approach the appellate Court, in case he is aggrieved against the said order. _____________