The main legal point established in the judgment is that the order sought to be revised is appealable under 0.39 R.1 and not revisable under S.115 CPC.

1. This revision filed by the plaintiffs arises from an order passed on I. A. No. 1616/82 in O. S.411/82 on the file of the H Addl. Munsiff's Court. Ernakulam. The plaintiffs are residing in a plot of 10 cents situated in Kontbu-ruthy. It is said that the property of the plaintiffs is enclosed by compound walls on all the four sides The defendants 1 and 2 are residing in the property lying adjacent to the plaintiff's property on the south. It is said that there is a private pathway about 20 feet wide proceeding northwards from Konthuruthy Church Road running along the eastern boundary upto the northern boundary of the property of defendants 1 and 2 and thereafter this pathway turns to the east. According to the plaintiffs, as they had no access to the pathway from their property they purchased the plaint schedule item lying adjacent on their eastern compound wall under a sale deed dated 7-2-1981. The plaint schedule item is said to be a small strip of land having width of 6 links and a length of 105 links. The plaintiffs allege that ever since they purchased the plaint schedule item they have been using it as the only way to their house from the private pathway referred to above. The third defendant is this case is the Corporation of Cochin and the fourth defendant is a neighbour. The fourth defendant put up a basement and compound wall on 5-4-1982 on the eastern boundary of his property and as a result of this, the drainage of water to the low lying lands on the east was stopped. Defendants 1 and 2 therefore wanted to drain the water to the plaint schedule property. They influenced the third defendant and succeeded in persuading it to take a decision to open a drain through the plaint property running south to north. The construction of such a drain would cause severe inconvenience and hardship to the plaintiffs. The representations made to the third defendant in this regard bad no effect. It was in these circumstances that the plaintiffs instituted the suit for an injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from cutting out or opening drainage through the plaint schedule property. In the suit, I.A. No. 1616/82 was filed by the plaintiffs praying for the issue of a temporary injunction.

2. The learned Munsiff after hearing both parties passed an order as an interim arrangement, and posted the petition for final hearing to some other day. It is this order that is strongly assailed before this Court on several grounds.

3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner. Mr. John Mathew, submitted that the order passed by the learned Munsiff without properly and duly considering the application filed by the plaintiffs and passing a final order therein, allowing the third defendant to construct the drain by putting up pipes through the plaint schedule property, is clearly illegal and that the learned Munsiff failed to note that none of the defendants has put in any application praying for such an order and the application filed by the plaintiffs was for issue of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from cutting open any drain through the plaint schedule item. The counsel also submitted that the rain water and other water stagnated in the property of defendants I and 2 could be very conveniently drained out to the low lying lands on the eastern side of the pathway, that this has been actually pointed out and suggested by the commissioner appointed in the case and that it was without considering any of these things that the learned Munsiff passed the order under challenge.

4. Smt. Seemanthini, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, with equal vehemence supported the order and contended that the revision itself is not maintainable as the order in question is an appealable order under 0.43 R.1(r); that there is a specific prohibition in sub-section (2) of S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against entertaining a revision against such orders and that on merits also the petitioners have no case and this