( 1 ) IN the referring judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 8th August, 2003, his Lordship has noted the point of difference arising out of the short but reported earlier judgment of Dulal Chandra Ojha, reported at AIR 1989 cal. 91.

( 2 ) THE point of reference is about the maintainability of a revisional application under Section 115.

( 3 ) THE plaintiffs'/applicants' suit was dismissed for default. After some proceedings in the High Court, the application for restoration (originally made under Section 151 was treated as an application made under Order 9 Rule 9; the said restoration application was also dismissed for default. A revisional application is maintainable and that the order is not appealable.

( 4 ) THIS has been contested by the opposite parties.

( 5 ) THE short point, therefore, is whether the dismissal of a restoration application is an appealable order within the Code.

( 6 ) THE reported judgment mentioned above does not mention any reasons for holding it to be so.

( 7 ) IN the later judgment his Lordship has held that the express words of Order 43 Rule 1 sub-rule (c) mention a suit and a dismissal of an application for restora