JUDGMENT : The petitioners are defendant Nos.1, 3, 4 and 12, who filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 before the Munsiffs Court to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against them. The Munsiffs court allowed the said application with a condition to pay costs of Rs.3,000/-. However, the petitioner could not pay the costs. Therefore, the said application was dismissed by the Munsiffs Court. 2. The petitioner filed C.M.A. No.6 of 2006 before the District Court concerned. The District court concerned, as per Ext.P2 judgment, dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal is not maintainable, against which this Original Petition has been filed. 3. Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In this case, the Munsiffs court concerned passed an order allowing the application filed by the petitioners under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on costs. However, Ext.P1 order would show that the costs could not be paid as directed. In the said circumstances, I.A. No.1585 of 2005 was dismissed by the Munsiffs Court. It is not disputed that I.A. No.1585 of 2005 was an application field by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Even though the said application was allowed on condition of payment of costs, it was eventually dismissed as per Ext.P1 order as the petitioners failed to pay the costs. Therefore, it has to be held that I.A. No.1585 of 2005 was eventually dismissed by the Munsiffs Court. Therefore, there can be no doubt that an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC, is maintainable against the said order. In the said circumstances, Ext.P2 judgment passed by the appellate court in C.M.A. No.6 of 2006, holding that the appeal is not maintainable, cannot be legal and correct and consequently, the same cannot be sustained. In the result, this Original Petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext.P2 judgment passed by the appellate court and the matter is remitted to the appellate court with a direction to the appellate court to dispose of C.M.A. No.6 of 2006 afresh, in accordance with law. Since the suit is of the year 2000, the appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment.