JUDGMENT : KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. The petitioner was defendant in Original Suit No. 376 of 2006 which was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963. The suit was decreed ex parte on 22.11.2017. The petitioner filed a Civil Appeal No. 105 of 2017 under Section 96 C.P.C. which has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 28.4.2023 as not maintainable. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since appeal even against an ex parte decree is maintainable under Section 96(2) C.P.C., the order impugned is illegal. 3. Shri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since admittedly, the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 there is a clear bar under Section 6(3) of the said Act which provides that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in such suit. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the appellate Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act 1963 and in view of statutory bar against the appeal, no illegality is found in the order of the appellate Court. However, in view of the language used under Section 115 C.P.C. there is remedy of filing revision in case where appeal has not been provided, I find that petitioner has alternative remedy of filing revision before the appropriate Court. 5. In view of the above, while declining to interfere in the order dated 28.4.2023, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a revision against ex parte decree dated 22.11.2017 alongwith appropriate application. 6. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is, accordingly disposed off. 7. Office is directed to return certified copies of the orders annexed alongwith this petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining the photo-stat copies on record.