( 1 ) THIS is an appln. for revn. of an order rejecting an appln. under S. 5, Limitation Act.

( 2 ) THE appct. filed a suit for the ejectment of the opposite parties from certain property and for damages. The suit was in part decreed and in part dismissed, and against that decree the appct. appealed. The last day for the filing of the appeal was 4-1-1950, but the appeal was in fact filed two days later, namely on 6th January. It was then accompanied by an appln. under Section 5, indian Limitation Act, supported by an affidavit, praying that the appeal be admitted on the ground of the appct. s illness. That appln. was on the following day, the 7th January, summarily dismissed by the learned Dist. J. in chambers without hearing the appct. or his counsel. No order was, however, made dismissing the appeal.

( 3 ) MR. H. P. Gupta, who appears for the opposite parties, raises the preliminary objection that no revn. lies as there is no "ease decided" within the meaning of Section 115, C. P. C. The question of what constitutes a "case decided" has been considered on a number of occasions by this Ct. , but as was pointed out in Ramzan Ali v. Satul Bibi, 1948 A. L. J. 43: (A. I. R