Judgment : 1. The Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision petitioners challenging the decree and judgment passed by III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in C.M.A.No.106 of 2007 wherein, reversing the order passed by the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 in O.S.No.7834 of 2000. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioners in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 / plaintiffs referred as revision petitioner since only Mr. U.Balaraman arrayed as plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the capacity as President of Sangam and also individual capacity. The respondent in the above said I.A.No.7879 of 2007 / defendant referred as respondent hereafter. 3. Admittedly, the revision petitioner as President of Sangam and also individual capacity filed a suit in O.S.No.7834 of 2000 on 13.12.2000 and seeking two reliefs (i.e.) a) for declaration, to declare the second revision petitioner is the President of the first revision petitioner's Sangam (i.e.) Chennai Vanniakula Kshatriya Maha Sangam, b) for consequential relief of injunction restraining the respondent, not to interfere in the revision petitioner's administration and management of the above said Sangam. At the time of filing the above said suit, the revision petitioner also filed an application in I.A.No.21174 of 2000 for interim injunction and the trial court has granted interim injunction. Challenging the above said interim injunction order, the respondent filed an application in I.A.No.2493 of 2001 to vacate the interim injunction. But, the trial court confirmed the interim injunction granted in I.A.No.21174 of 2000 and dismissed the application in I.A.No.2493 of 2001. Aggrieved over the said orders, two Civil Miscellaneous Appeals in C.M.A.Nos.119 of 2002 and 77 of 2001 respectively have been preferred. The Appellate Court allowed both the appeals by reversing the orders of the trial court. Aggrieved over the above said common judgment rendered by the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner preferred two Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(PD).Nos.723 and 724 of 2007 before this Court. This Court on hearing both sides passed a common order on 09.03.2007 as follows:- ''6. In the above circumstances, status quo is hereby ordered to be maintained, with a direction to the learned VIII Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to try the suit in day to day basis and dispose the same on or before 26.04.2007. This Court on hearing both sides passed a common order on 09.03.2007 as follows:- ''6. In the above circumstances, status quo is hereby ordered to be maintained, with a direction to the learned VIII Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai to try the suit in day to day basis and dispose the same on or before 26.04.2007. The parties are directed to co-operate with the trial court in conducting the trial, without filing any vexatious petitions to drag on the proceedings.'' 4. From the records it is also revealed that as directed by this Court, the trial court has taken up the case for hearing on 29.03.2007 and the revision petitioner (Mr. U.Balaraman) appeared before Trial court but seeking time for filing proof affidavit for chief examination. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 03.04.2007 for filing proof affidavit of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed a proof affidavit for chief examination on 03.04.2007, in which the revision petitioner had shown about 29 documents as Exhibits. Out of 29 documents, 18 documents are xerox copies, which were already filed along with plaint, the other documents No.19 to 29 shown in the proof affidavit not produced along with proof affidavit and also not filed any application to receive the above said documents as additional documents. The trial court adjourned the case to 13.04.2007 for production of the documents. In the meantime, the revision petitioner filed a memo before V Fast Tract Court only on 09.04.2007 for return of documents, but, the above said court directed the petitioner to file proper affidavit and petition. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed a petition only on 10.04.2007 vide CMP No.18 of 2007 seeking for return of documents. The revision petitioner has also not pursue the above said proceedings before V Fast Tract Court to return back the documents. In the meantime, the trial court adjourned the case for production and marking the documents by the revision petitioner for several hearings (i.e.) on 13.04.2007, 16.04.2007, 17.04.2007 and finally adjourned on 26.04.2007. Since the revision petitioner remained absent on 26.04.2007, the trial court dismissed the suit for default. 5. In the meantime, the trial court adjourned the case for production and marking the documents by the revision petitioner for several hearings (i.e.) on 13.04.2007, 16.04.2007, 17.04.2007 and finally adjourned on 26.04.2007. Since the revision petitioner remained absent on 26.04.2007, the trial court dismissed the suit for default. 5. Aggrieved over the above said dismissal of the suit by the trial court, the revision petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the dismissal order dated 26.04.2007 passed in O.S.No.7834 of 2000 before the trial court and prayed for to restore the suit. 6. In the affidavit filed in support of the above said application, the revision petitioner has stated that the additional documents were already filed before V Fast Tract Court by the revision petitioner and therefore, the revision petitioner filed a memo on 09.04.2007 to return of the documents, but, the judge directed the revision petitioner to file affidavit and petition and therefore, the revision petitioner filed affidavit and petition on 10.04.2007 in C.M.P.No.18 of 2007. But, the judge has not passed any orders regarding return of the documents. Further, in the affidavit, it is stated that the revision petitioner also filed an application for extension of time by six months on 26.04.2007 before this Court in CMP SR No.34273 of 2007. It is also averred in the affidavit that on 26.04.2007, the revision petitioner personally appeared before the trial court in the morning and the trial court has passed over the matter and taken up the matter afternoon and directed the counsel for the revision petitioner to file the documents. Further, the revision petitioner's counsel informed to the trial court judge that the revision petitioner filed an application for extension of time before High Court and also an application for return of documents filed before the Fast Track Court, to that effect, filed a memo before the trial court. However, the trial court returned the memo and dismissed the suit for default by 3.45 p.m., on 26.04.2007. Therefore, only because of V Fast Track Court has not return the documents, the revision petitioner unable to mark the documents. Hence, prayed for to set aside the dismissal order of the suit dated 26.04.2007 made in O.S.No.7834 of 2000 and to restore the suit. 7. Therefore, only because of V Fast Track Court has not return the documents, the revision petitioner unable to mark the documents. Hence, prayed for to set aside the dismissal order of the suit dated 26.04.2007 made in O.S.No.7834 of 2000 and to restore the suit. 7. In the above said application, the respondent herein filed a detailed counter in which, denied various contentions and stated that the High Court already directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on merits on or before 26.04.2007 and also directed the revision petitioner and the respondent to cooperate for complying the direction of the High Court. In the above said circumstances, the revision petitioner should be taken effective steps for early disposal of the suit. Further, it is stated that the revision petitioner had obtained an order of injunction on 15.12.2000 and then the revision petitioner made all efforts to drag the proceedings. Further, the High Court has informed the revision petitioner, at the time of filing the petition for extension of time in C.R.P.(PD)Nos.723 and 724 of 2007 that the revision petitioner has no right to request the High Court for extension of time and only the concerned court alone has to obtain extension of time before High Court and therefore, the High Court has not granted further time for disposal of the suit and also not entertained the above said petition filed by the revision petitioner as not maintainable. It is also averred in the counter that the revision petitioner filed the proof affidavit on 29.03.2007 without enclosing any documents. However, in the proof affidavit, it has been shown about 29 documents as Exhibits. Out of 29 documents, 18 documents are xerox copies, filed along with the plaint. The revision petitioner has not filed other documents. Further, it is averred in the counter that V Fast Track Court had disposed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals on 25.01.2006, but, the revision petitioner kept quiet for over several months without taking any steps to get back those documents which establishes the real intention of the revision petitioner (i.e.) to drag the proceedings as much as possible. Therefore, the revision petitioner has not cooperated to dispose the above said case on merits as directed by the High Court and the reason assigned by the revision petitioner in the above said affidavit is not sustainable in law. Therefore, prayed for to dismiss the application. 8. Therefore, the revision petitioner has not cooperated to dispose the above said case on merits as directed by the High Court and the reason assigned by the revision petitioner in the above said affidavit is not sustainable in law. Therefore, prayed for to dismiss the application. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the trial court revealed that the trial court has not at all discussed about the reasons assigned for delay in the affidavit filed by the revision petitioner and the contentions raised by the respondent in the counter and then passed the above said order. The trial court has passed an order in brief without any discussion about both side contentions and the entire portion of the findings of the trial court extracted as follows:- ''11. On considering the facts and circumstances and also the happenings in the case on hand, it is found that the application for setting aside the exparte order dated 26.04.2007 if entertained, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondent much less it may give an opportunity for the respondent also to prosecute in a fair manner further. Hence, in the interest of justice and also in view of the happenings in the matter that the application be and the same stands allowed as prayed for without cost.'' 9. Aggrieved over the above said order passed by the trial court, the respondent herein preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The Appellate Court has discussed in detail about both side contentions and also considered the direction given by the High Court and finally held that the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside and accordingly allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the application in I.A.No.7879 of 2007. Aggrieved over the above said finding of the Appellate Court, the revision petitioner, preferred this revision petition. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the trial court by exercising its discretionary powers, allowed the application for restoration of the suit, but, the Appellate Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that this Court has directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on or before 26.04.2007. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly contended that the trial court by exercising its discretionary powers, allowed the application for restoration of the suit, but, the Appellate Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that this Court has directed the trial court to dispose of the suit on or before 26.04.2007. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that the Appellate Court has not at all considered the explanations given by the revision petitioner in the affidavit. According to the revision petitioner, after disposal of the Civil Revision Petitions, before this Court on 09.03.2007, the revision petitioner approached the Fast Track Court wherein the documents produced by the revision petitioner were available and filed a memo for return of the above said documents. But, the Fast Track Court directed the petitioners to file proper petition to return of the documents. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed an affidavit and petition on 10.04.2007. But, till date of disposal of the main suit, (i.e.) on 26.04.2007, Fast Track Court not furnished the above said documents, therefore, the revision petitioner unable to attend the Court and proceed the case. Hence, the finding of the Appellate Court are perverse and therefore, liable to be set aside. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the original suit was filed on 13.12.2000. The revision petitioner obtained interim injunction and prolonged the proceedings for several years. In the above said circumstances, this Court has fixed the date to dispose of the suit on or before 26.04.2007 and also to try the suit by day to day basis and also directed all the parties to co-operate with the trial court in conducting the trial without filing any vexatious petition to drag on the proceedings. Inspite of the above said specific direction of this Court, the revision petitioner has failed to proceed the case so as to dispose of the suit within the date fixed by this Court. Further, the revision petitioner seeking several adjournments by saying that the documents were available in Fast Track Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that this Court has directed to dispose of the suit on or before 09.03.2007 and the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to get back the alleged documents from Fast Track Court till 09.04.2007. Further, the revision petitioner seeking several adjournments by saying that the documents were available in Fast Track Court. The learned counsel further pointed out that this Court has directed to dispose of the suit on or before 09.03.2007 and the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to get back the alleged documents from Fast Track Court till 09.04.2007. Only on 09.04.2007, filed a memo for return of documents and the above said Court correctly returned the memo and then the revision petitioner filed the petition and affidavit only on 10.04.2007. The learned counsel further submitted that even after filing the above said petition, the revision petitioner has not pursue the matter to obtain the documents within time and kept quiet till the last date fixed by this Court to dispose of the suit on 26.04.2007 and therefore, considering the above said conduct of the revision petitioner, the Appellate Court correctly dismissed the petitions filed by the revision petitioner and the above said finding of the Appellate court is not perverse or illegal as contended by the revision petitioner and therefore, no need to interfere in the above said correct finding. 13. Admittedly, the revision petitioner (Mr. U.Balaraman as President of Sangam and also individual capacity arrayed as plaintiffs 1 and 2) filed the suit on 13.12.2000, and obtained interim injunction. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court has considered the submission made by both sides before this Court and directed to list the case on day to day basis and to dispose of the main suit on or before 26.04.2007. This Court has also directed as ''both parties to co-operate with the trial court in conducting the trial without filing any vexatious petitions to drag on the proceedings''. The above said order was passed on 09.03.2007, only on hearing both side counsels. 14. In the above said circumstances, the revision petitioner has not given any explanation, why not taken any steps to obtain the alleged documents pending before Fast Track Court till 09.04.2007 inspite of direction of this Court on 09.03.2007. It is also admitted that on 29.03.2007 itself the revision petitioner appeared before the trial court and seeking adjournment and on his request, the case was adjourned on 03.04.2007, 13.04.2007, 16.04.2007, 17.04.2007 and finally on 26.04.2007. It is also admitted that on 29.03.2007 itself the revision petitioner appeared before the trial court and seeking adjournment and on his request, the case was adjourned on 03.04.2007, 13.04.2007, 16.04.2007, 17.04.2007 and finally on 26.04.2007. It is also revealed that on 03.04.2007 itself, proof affidavit for chief examination was filed by the revision petitioner without filing several documents mentioned in the proof affidavit for chief examination. Therefore, even before 03.04.2007 itself, the revision petitioner well aware of the fact that the documents are not available in spite of listing the documents in the proof affidavit. Absolutely no explanation was given in the affidavit why the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to return back the documents from the Fast Track Court before 03.04.2007 or immediately after 03.04.2007. Inspite of a direction of this Court, the revision petitioner has not pursue to obtain the documents immediately from Fast Track Court. The revision petitioner only filing memo belatedly on 09.04.2007 and then the petition for return of documents filed on 10.04.2007. It is also revealed that the revision petitioner has not taken further steps to obtain the documents immediately in spite of court directions. 15. It is also admitted that the revision petitioner approached this Court for extension of time, only on the final day (i.e.) on 26.04.2007 fixed by this Court to dispose of the suit to extend the time and the above said petition also not taken on file and it was only in SR stage, it may be because of defective and therefore, the revision petitioner has not taken any necessary steps to obtain extension of time by giving sufficient reasons. From the above said discussion, it is clear that the revision petitioner was not at all ready to proceed the case as directed by this Court and from the above said conduct, it is clear that the intention of the revision petitioner is only to prolong the proceedings. 16. As already discussed, the trial court has not at all considered the specific direction of this Court to dispose of the suit and also the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain the documents from Fast Track Court till 09.04.2007 and even after that the revision petitioner not pursue the matter to return back the documents. 16. As already discussed, the trial court has not at all considered the specific direction of this Court to dispose of the suit and also the revision petitioner has not taken any steps to obtain the documents from Fast Track Court till 09.04.2007 and even after that the revision petitioner not pursue the matter to return back the documents. Further, the petitioners failed to obtain extension of time before the concerned trial court or before this court by filing necessary petitions with sufficient reasons in advance before expiry of time fixed by the Court. But, the trial court simply allowed the application only on the ground that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner in the interest of justice. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the finding of the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside. 17. On perusal of the detailed judgment passed by the appellate court revealed that the appellate court has discussed all the contentions raised by both sides and also the conduct of the revision petitioner, in spite of the direction of this Court and finally came to the correct conclusion that the application filed by the revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed and accordingly set aside the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the above said application. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on two decisions reported in 2009(2) SCC 692 (Raj Kishore Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others), and contended that the consideration of the existence of sufficient cause is the discretionary power with the court, but, such description has to be exercised on sound principles and not on mere technicalities and also submitted that as possible should be decided on merits. The relevant portion of the above said decision in paras 6 and 7 extracted as under:- ''6. The appellant coming to know about the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, had filed restoration application, bringing to the notice of the Court that he had engaged the services of Shri R.M. Saggi and Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned advocates to prosecute the writ petition. The appellant coming to know about the dismissal of the writ petition for non-prosecution, had filed restoration application, bringing to the notice of the Court that he had engaged the services of Shri R.M. Saggi and Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned advocates to prosecute the writ petition. Shri Saggi was unwell on the date when the writ petition was posted for hearing and, therefore, he had sent his illness slip and had requested the Court to accommodate him on account of illness and further, Shri S.P. Srivastava, whose name also appeared in the cause-list had been elevated to the Bench of the High Court and, therefore could not appear as the counsel for the appellant. The explanation offered according to the learned Judges is not satisfactory and, therefore, they have rejected the restoration application. Aggrieved by these two orders, the appellant is before us in this appeal. 7. In our view, the approach of the learned Judges, to say the lease is hyper technical. Admittedly, the appellant had engaged the services of Shri S.P. Srivastava and Shri R.M. Saggi. Shri Srivastava is elevated to the Bench and, therefore, he could not appear as a counsel for the appellant though his name was shown in the cause-list. The other learned counsel was suffering from a physical ailment. Admittedly, he had sent ''illness slip'' with the request for adjournment. When these factual assertions were not in dispute, in our opinion, the Court should have allowed the prayer made in the restoration application and should have heard the case on merits, which was pending for the last two decades. It is true that the appellant has to take necessary steps to prosecute the petition by following-up action after filing the writ petition. The appellant had engaged the services of two learned counsel. Unfortunately for him, one was elevated to the Bench and the other was suffering from a physical ailment. All this information was forthcoming in the application filed for restoration. The High Court has not appreciated these facts.'' As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. All this information was forthcoming in the application filed for restoration. The High Court has not appreciated these facts.'' As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the above said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Admittedly, in the above said case one of the counsel appearing for the petitioner was suffering from physical ailment and to prove the same, he had sent illness slip with request for adjournment and another counsel engaged by the appellant was elevated to the Bench. In spite of the above said reasons given in the application, the restoration application was dismissed and therefore, set aside the order. But, in the instant case, as already discussed, considering the long pendency of the suit, this Court has specifically directed both sides to co-operate to dispose of the suit and also trial court is directed to post the case on day to day basis and also directed not to entertain unnecessary application by both sides. In spite of the above said specific direction of this Court, the revision petitioner have failed to comply with the conditional order of the Court and seeking adjournment. Therefore, absolutely no sufficient cause so as to exercise the discretionary powers to allow the application. 19. The learned counsel also relied on another decision reported in (Mayyeri Mohammadkutty Haji v. Nazar) before High Court of Kerala in CRP No.760 of 2008 in which paras 8 and 9 reads as under:- ''8. Therefore, the fact that petitioner did not appear on previous occasions to which the case was posted cannot be taken as an adverse conduct for dismissing the petition for removal of the case from list, which was filed on 04.03.2008. The court below itself had allowed the prayer and this must be for the reason that the contentions are true. The court below did not consider whether the reason shown for the absence on 04.03.2008 was acceptable or not. The question is whether on 04.03.2008, the date on which the case was included in the list, petitioner had sufficient cause for not appearing in court. 9. It appears from the impugned order that court has given opportunity to the petitioner to examine himself on commission, but no steps were taken by him. The question is whether on 04.03.2008, the date on which the case was included in the list, petitioner had sufficient cause for not appearing in court. 9. It appears from the impugned order that court has given opportunity to the petitioner to examine himself on commission, but no steps were taken by him. The explanation given by the petitioner is that he filed I.A. No.279/2008 to remove the case from list, since he had to obtain certified copy of certain documents from the court to produce the same before the Village Office. That is why he could not get ready for examination. No reason is also shown as to why petitioner did not take steps sufficiently early to get the documents referred to in I.A. No.279/2008.'' 20. In the above said decision also not applicable to the facts of the present case, since in the above said decision, the court has held that the petitioner had given sufficient cause for non-appearing into Court, but, the court below did not considered the above said reasons are acceptable or not. In the above said circumstances, the court has held as stated above. But, in the instant case as already discussed, the petitioner has not at all given any reason to proceed the case from the date of High Court order till 09.10.2007 and also subsequent hearings. Further, the revision petitioner failed to take steps to get back the documents immediately after passing of the conditional order passed by this Court. Therefore, the above said decision also not helpful the revision petitioner. From the above said discussion, the conduct of the revision petitioner revealed that only with an intention to prolong the proceedings, the revision petitioner not ready to proceed the case as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 21. From the above said discussion, this Court is of the view that the finding of the Appellate court is reasonable and it is not perverse as contended by the revision petitioner. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner for the first time, during the course of argument challenged the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate court. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner filed the original suit and the above said suit was dismissed for default. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner for the first time, during the course of argument challenged the maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent before the appellate court. The learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner filed the original suit and the above said suit was dismissed for default. On the side of the revision petitioner, filed an application to set aside the exparte order of dismissal of the suit under Order 9 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure and the trial court has allowed the above said application and restored the suit. The learned counsel further pointed out that as per the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(c) Code of Civil Procedure, as against the above said order passed by the trial court, the appeal is not maintainable, but, the respondent herein preferred an appeal against the order of the trial court passed under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the case and on that ground also, the judgment of the appellate court liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on three decisions :- 1. AIR 1974 SC 1126 (Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar) 2. 1994 (1) LW 285 (Swarnambal v. K.Thambal and 2 others) 3. 2011(6) MHLJ 571 (Patel Engin Ltd., v. United E&B.P.Ltd.,). 23. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the revision petitioner has not raised the above said plea before the appellate court and therefore, the appellate court has not given any finding regarding the maintainability of the appeal in the judgment. The learned counsel further pointed out that the revision petitioner has not at all raised the above said plea in the grounds filed in the present revision petition and also not filed any additional ground for the above said contention and therefore, without any pleadings and submissions before the appellate court, for the first time, the revision petitioner raised the above said plea without any pleadings before this Court and hence, the revision petitioner not entitled to raise the above said plea for the first time at the time of argument. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the facts in all the three decisions relied on by the revision petitioner not applicable to the facts of the present case and specifically pointed out that admittedly the first decision relied on by the revision petitioner relating to prior to amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24. It is not in dispute that the revision petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the dismissal order passed by the trial court and to restore the suit. The trial court allowed the application only on the ground that an opportunity must be given to the revision petitioner in the interest of justice without considering the reasons adduced by the revision petitioner and objection raised by the respondent. Aggrieved over the above said order of the trial court, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. In the above said appeal proceedings, the revision petitioner appeared through counsel and contested the appeal. Admittedly, the revision petitioner has not raised any plea regarding the question of jurisdiction. The revision petitioner permitted to proceed the appeal and argue the case only on merits. Therefore, the appellate court considered both side submissions and given the findings on merits. It is also not in dispute that the revision petitioner has not stated in the grounds in the revision petition filed before this Court that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and hence, the appeal is not lie under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. On a careful reading of the entire grounds filed by the revision petitioner revealed that nowhere it is stated that the appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and on that ground, the above said judgment is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner also admitted that the revision petitioner failed to challenge the maintainability of the appeal before appellate court and also in the grounds of the present revision and only at the time of arguments in the revision petition, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner pointed out the above said plea regarding the question of jurisdiction of appellate court. 25. 25. The relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the two decisions relied on by the revision petitioner are extracted as under:- i) Order 9 Rule 9:- Decree against plaintiff by default bars fresh suit:- (1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his nonappearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. (2) No order shall be made under this rule unless notice of the application has been served on the opposite party. ii) Order 43 Rule 1(c):- ''1. Appeals from orders: c) an order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit.'' iii) Section 141 CPC : Miscellaneous proceedings:- ''The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suit shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. [Explanation.” In this section, the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.'' 26. The decision of this High Court relied on by the revision petitioner reported in 1994 (1) LW 285 (Swarnambal v. K.Thambal and 2 others), in which para 8 is extracted as follows:- ''8. The Explanation was introduced by amendment Act 104 of 1976. As per the Explanation, a procedure prescribed in the Code with regard to suits are made applicable to proceedings under O.9 of the Code. That would only mean that the provisions for restoration of a suit by setting aside an exparte decree or setting aside an order of dismissal for default are applicable to orders passed exparte applications under O.9 or orders dismissing for default applications under O.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That would only mean that the provisions for restoration of a suit by setting aside an exparte decree or setting aside an order of dismissal for default are applicable to orders passed exparte applications under O.9 or orders dismissing for default applications under O.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That will not by itself lead to the conclusion that the provision relating to appeal under O.43 of the Code of Civil Procedure would also apply to any order rejecting an application under O.9. The Section refers only to the procedure. The section does not refer to any substantive right. As pointed out already, appeal is a substantive right and it has to be conferred by a statute. When the Code of Civil Procedure Confers a right of appeal only with reference to orders rejecting applications for restoration of suits. It cannot be construed as a right of appeal against orders rejecting applications for restoration of applications. In other words, O.9 Rr.9 and 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for applications to restore suits and applications to restore applications in the Code of Civil Procedure. But, a right of appeal is conferred only with reference to orders on applications to restore suits and not orders on applications to restore applications. Even there, appeal is provided only against an order rejecting the application and not an order granting the same.'' 27. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner relied on another decision reported in 2011(6) MHLJ 571 (Patel Engin Ltd., v. United E&B.P.Ltd.,), in which para 1 is extracted as follows:- ''1. The Appellant has filed this Appeal from the Order challenging the order allowing restoration of the Respondent's Suit earlier dismissed for default. The Respondent has claimed that the Appeal from Order is not maintainable as it is not an appealable order. The Appellant claims that it is appealable under Order 43, Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 43, Rule 1(d) relates to an order under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 9, Rule 13 relates to setting aside a decree ex parte against the Defendant. The order impugned is not a decree passed ex parte against the Defendant. It is an order rejecting an order of restoration of the Suit. Order 43, Rule 1(d) relates to an order under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Order 9, Rule 13 relates to setting aside a decree ex parte against the Defendant. The order impugned is not a decree passed ex parte against the Defendant. It is an order rejecting an order of restoration of the Suit. A decree under section 2(2) is a formal expression of adjudication which conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the Suit. An order rejecting an application allowing restoration of a Suit would, rather than determine the rights of the parties for any matters in controversy, restore for determination all of them which remain to be adjudicated. Consequently the order is not appealable as claimed by the Appellant. The Appeal is not maintainable. It deserves to be dismissed on that score alone as argued by Ms. Ghone on behalf of the Respondent.'' The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the facts of the above said cases are differs and not applicable to the present case since in the present case, the revision petitioner not challenged the maintainability of the appeal before appellate court or in the grounds in the revision petition. 28. A careful reading of the relevant provisions of Order 9 Rule 9, Order 43 Rule 1(c) and Section 141 of Code of Civil Procedure revealed that as against the order of allowing the application filed in I.A.No.7879 of 2007 under Order 9 Rule 9 of Code of Civil Procedure, by the trial court, appeal is not maintainable as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. But, in the instant case challenging the order passed in the above said I.A.No.7879 of 2007 filed by the revision petitioner, the respondent herein preferred an appeal on 19.09.2007. In the above said proceedings, the revision petitioner has appeared through counsel and only on hearing both side counsels submissions, the appellate court has pronounced the judgment on 30.01.2008. During the pendency of the above said appeal, the revision petitioner has not raised the question of jurisdiction before the appellate court. Further, the revision petitioner filed this revision petition before this Court on 28.02.2008 and the same is pending for more than six years before this Court. During the pendency of the above said appeal, the revision petitioner has not raised the question of jurisdiction before the appellate court. Further, the revision petitioner filed this revision petition before this Court on 28.02.2008 and the same is pending for more than six years before this Court. The revision petitioner has not at all stated the above said ground in the revision petition as the appellate court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and on that ground, the findings of the appellate court is to be set aside. Further, revision petitioner has not filed any additional ground, challenging the question of jurisdiction of the appellate court during the pendency of the civil revision petition also. Only at the time of arguments before this Court, raised the above said question of jurisdiction. From the above said facts revealed that both sides accepted the jurisdiction of the appellate court and submitted the rival contentions and on hearing both side contentions, the appellate court has given findings. As already discussed, the revision petitioner has not challenged the above said finding in the revision petition. Further, if the revision petition is allowed, necessary opportunity to be given to the respondent to withdraw the appeal from the appellate court and permission is to be given to the respondent to present before concerned court. If such permission is granted then the proceedings will be delayed further. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, only with an intention to prolong the proceedings, the revision petitioner raised the above said question, only at the time of arguments without any pleadings. As already discussed, all the contentions raised by the revision petitioner cannot be accepted since there is no merits in the above said contentions. 29. From the above said discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the revision petition filed by the revision petitioner is liable to be dismissed since the findings of the appellate court are not perverse or illegal as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.