Judgment :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to get set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.04.2012 passed in I.A.No.418 of 2011 in O.S.No.272 of 2011, by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff would echo the cri de coeur and heart burns of his client to the effect that his client being the plaintiff filed the I.A.No.418 of 2011 seeking interim injunction with the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of ad-interim Injunction restraining the 1st Respondent/Defendant permitting the 3rd Respondent/Defendant from nominating any person to the diocesan counsel till the disposal of this petition and temporary injunction to the disposal of the suit until election process is over and thus render justice." After hearing both sides, the lower Court passed the order dismissing the said application; as such, his client filed this revision. 4. When this Court raised a query as to how this Civil Revision Petition would straightaway lie instead of filing an appeal by invoking Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in view of the decision of this Court in Durairajand others v. Venugopal and another reported in 2012-3-L.W. 807, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff sought time to think over it and now, he in all fairness would submit that in the event of this Court finding that this Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable, liberty might be given to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to prefer an appeal excluding the time taken for prosecuting this revision. 5. Whereupon the learned Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 would also agree with the aforesaid proposition of law by relying on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in MalatiSantra v. Nanda Dulal Banik reported in AIR 1994 CALCUTTA 229 that as against the dismissal of an application seeking injunction, an appeal would lie in view of Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Hence, I would like to dismiss this Civil Revision Petition giving liberty to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to file an appeal excluding the time taken for prosecuting this revision. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs.