Judgment Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Challenge herein is to three orders dated 5.8.2010, Annexure P-3, whereby learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu has dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff in default, order dated 1.10.2011, Annexure P-6, whereby an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by him for restoration of the suit to its original number and file, was dismissed and order dated 26.11.2012, Annexure P-8, dismissing thereby the Civil Misc. Appeal preferred against the order Annexure P-6 on the grounds inter alia that the order impugned being passed in an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alone is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Learned counsel representing the respondent has raised the question of jurisdiction while submitting that the order, Annexure P-6 finally decides the questions of limitation and, as such, being revisable could have not been assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submissions so made have some force, however, as vide order, Annexure P-8, under challenge in this petition, learned District Judge, Kullu, has refused to condone the delay as occurred in filing the appeal the necessary implication thereof would be that the appeal itself being not maintainable stood disposed of. The order so passed in the opinion of this Court, therefore, can be challenged in a petition of this nature and even can be quashed also if found to be contrary to the legal provisions and not based upon the facts. 3. The present is a case where the suit has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The petitioner-plaintiff has exhausted the remedy available to him i.e. sought the order so passed quashed and registration of the suit to its original number and file, by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 4 read with Order 9, Rule 9 and Section 151 CPC. Since the application was barred by 13 days, therefore, a prayer for quashing of the order of dismissal of the suit was made on condonation of delay. Learned trial Court has, however, arrived at a conclusion that sufficient cause has not been shown warranting the condonation of delay so occurred in filing the application. Therefore, vide order Annexure P-6, the application has been dismissed. Learned trial Court has, however, arrived at a conclusion that sufficient cause has not been shown warranting the condonation of delay so occurred in filing the application. Therefore, vide order Annexure P-6, the application has been dismissed. The refusal to condone the delay amounts to deny the quashing of the order of dismissal and restoration of the suit to its original number and file. Therefore, against the order of this nature, the only remedy available would have been to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner-plaintiff did avail the remedy so available to him, however, learned lower appellate Court while taking an erroneous view in the matter that the trial court has only declined the prayer made qua condonation of delay as occurred in filing the application for setting aside the exparte order has held that the appeal is not maintainable. The conclusion so drawn by learned lower appellate Court is neither legally nor factually sustainable for the reason that the application, as a matter of fact, was not filed only for condonation of delay, but with a prayer to quash the order of dismissal of the suit in default on condonation of delay, hence was an application filed with composite prayer. The appropriate course available to learned Lower Appellate Court, therefore, was to have considered the appeal and decided the same on merits. 4. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P-8 is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to learned lower appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations hereinabove and hearing the parties on both sides. The parties through learned counsel representing them are directed to appear in the Court of learned District Judge on 16th May, 2014. This petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application, if any. Authenticated copy to learned Lower appellate court and also to learned trial Court for compliance and being taken on record.