1. The plaintiff in a suit for enforcement of his right of pre-emption in relation to the suit property, originally owned by the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 as co-owners, and for a perpetual injunction to restrain the first defendant in whose favour a sale deed has been executed by defendants 2 to 7. "from interfering in any manner with the suit property either by himself or through defendants 2 to 7", is the revision petitioner.

2. Failure on the part of the defendants to file the written statement resulted in the suit being disposed of under R.10 of O.8 CPC. The respondents thereupon moved I.A. Nos. 3319 and 3320 of 1987 (identical relief is sought for in these petitions) for an order setting aside the exparte decree. These applications have been allowed by the common order under challenge.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary. objection that the revision is not maintainable because the order under challenge is an appealable one. In support of this contention be made reference to 0.43 R.1 (d) CPC. This rule provides that an order under R.13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree p