JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - On second call also, the learned counsel for the petitioner is absent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 15.06.2013 by which Misc. Case No. 30 of 2008 has been dismissed. 3. By an order dated 31.03.2008 Succession Case No. 86 of 2005 was dismissed in default. For restoration of the succession case the petitioner filed an application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 2008. Order dated 31.03.2008 records that inspite of opportunities granted the plaintiff did not adduce evidence and he has not deposited the cost imposed upon him as a condition for granting liberty to him to adduce evidence in the case. Misc. Case No. 30 of 2008 seeking restoration of Succession Case No. 86 of 2005 has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 15.06.2013. 4. Mr. Nikhil Kr. Mehta, the learned counsel appears for the respondent-State and submits that the impugned order dated 15.06.2013 is not appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 104 CPC, however, by the said order the proceeding in Misc. Case No. 30 of 2008 has been finally terminated and while so, challenging order dated 15.06.2013 revision under Section 115 CPC shall lie. 5. In the above facts, instead of dismissing this writ petition in default, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the petitioner to avail of appropriate remedy as available to him, if so advised. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner.