Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

1. An order dismissing an application for restoration of an earlier application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is not appealable [judgement_subject].

2. The petitioner filed multiple applications under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoration of a suit dismissed for default, and these applications were dismissed for default each time (!) .

3. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the order of dismissal of the third application for restoration, but the appellate court held that such an appeal was not maintainable (!) .

4. The court clarified that an application under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoration of an earlier application is maintainable under section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, but any order passed in such a second application is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(c) because it pertains to the restoration of an application, not a suit [judgement_subject] (!) .

5. When an application under Order 9 Rule 9 is dismissed for default, the aggrieved party has two remedies: an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) or a fresh application under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoration. These remedies are concurrent but distinct, and an appeal from an order dismissing such an application is not permissible (!) (!) .

6. The appellate court emphasized that the scope of remedies under Order 9 Rule 9 and Order 43 Rule 1(c) are different, and an order dismissing a second application for restoration is not appealable (!) .

7. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable, and found no illegality or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower courts (!) (!) .

8. The court did not decide on the merits of the case, as the primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal itself (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with this case.