ORDER:- The civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against an order made in LA. No.563 of 2007 in A.S. No.21 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. It is needless to say that as against an order of this nature CRP under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable. As can be seen from the facts, the interim injunction granted earlier had made absolute by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur in I.A. No.563 of 2007 by order dated 28.2.2007. It is also pertinent to note that an order of interim injunction had been granted in a pending appeal by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddutur. As against such order, the civil revision petition as such cannot be ma1ntained. In K. Gangulappa Naidu and others v. K. Gangi Naidu, AIR 1982 AP 284, it was held by the learned Judge of this Court as follows:

"In the instant case pending the appeal preferred against the disposal of the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 is filed and that application is disposed of for the first time by the appellate Court. This is not a case where against the orders under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 made by the trial Court an appeal is preferred to the District Court and as against the orders of the District Court the matter is carried to this Court. So this does not come under the mischief of Section 104(2) CPC, but squarely falls under Order 43, Rule l(r). Accordingly, an appeal shall lie under Order 43 Ru1e l(r) read with Section 104(1) CPC. The authorities cited, as already noted, are distinguishable since the interlocutory proceedings there started from trial Court, then to the appellate Court and thereafter to the High Court attracting Section 104(2), CPC. Those High Courts are right in holding that no such appeal in those circumstances could be maintained. The case on hand is altogether different in nature and does not attract Section 104(2). Therefore, an appeal does lie and is maintainable in the instant case. In a subsequent case in Ramaswamy v. Chinna Sithammal, AIR 1975 Mad. 63, Ramaswamy, J., had to consider a similar point. The facts of the case were: Two appeals were filed in the High Court against orders in two applications, which were filed to restore two appeals, which were dismissed for default. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents that the appeals were not maintainable and in support of their case they relied upon the decision of Natarajan, J., in C. Kalahasti v. PCM Chetti, AIR 1975 Mad. 3. TI1e learned Judge, Ramaswamy, J., dealing with that point held the view that (at P.64):

"Section 104(2) says that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under the said section. In order to attract sub-section (2) the appeal should be one falling under Section 104. If the appeal is one under Section 96, and not under Section 104, subsection (2) of the latter section is not applicable. If Section 104(2) is construed otherwise, that is, as applying to appeals coming under Section 96, also the position would be anomalous. He further observed that sub-clause (t) and (u) of Rule 1 of Order XLIII provide for appeals against orders passed under one provision or other of Order XLI, which governs appeals coming under Section 96. The said two sub-clauses cannot possibly refer to any order by a trial Court. While Clause (t) relates to an order refusing to re-admit (or to re-hear) relates to an order of remand made by an appellate Court under Rule 23 of Order XLI meaningless if sub-section (2) of Section 104 is made to apply to appeals under Section 96. No one can suggest that no appeal lies against an order of remand made under Order XLI Rule 23.

In the present case, the order of the Court below is one under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code, made in appeals under Section 96. That order is certainly an appealable one as per Order XLIII, Rule l(t) of the Code. I am quite c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document