JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan and Madeley, JJ. - A preliminary objection is taken to the hearing of these three connected appeals that no appeal lies. The appeals purport to have been filed under Order XLIII rule 1 (w) of the CPC against an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII of the CPC granting an application for review. The learned District Judge who had originally heard the appeals granted the application for review on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. Order XLVII rule (1) lays down :

An order of the Court rejecting the application shall not be appealable; but an order granting an application may be objected to on the ground that the application was

(a) in. contravention of the provisions of rule 2.

(b) in contravention of the provisions of rule 4, or

(c) after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed therefor and without sufficient cause.

Such objection may 'be taken at once by an appeal from the order granting the. application or in any appeal from the final decree or order passed or made in the suit.

2. Neither of these grounds is applicable to the present case. Rule a requires that an application on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the decree shall only be made to the Judge who passed the decree or made the order sought to be reviewed. In the present case the Judge granting the review was the original Judge who passed the decree sought to be reviewed. There was therefore, no contravention of the provisions of rule 2. Rule 4 was observed and the applition was within time The only question is whether the provisions of Order XLIII rule 1 (w) should be read subject to Order XLVII rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the two orders are read together there can be no doubt that an order granting review on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not appealable.

3. In Indar Kuar v. Thakur Baldtp Bakhsh (1910) 13 OC 248. it was held that the right of appeal granted under Order XLIII, rule 1 (w) is a right of appeal subject to the restrictions set forth in Order XLVII rule 7 of the CPC to the same effect Is the view expressed in Shaukat Ali Vs. Mt. Shakila Bano, AIR 1926 All 492 , Keshab Prasad Mandal v. Janeshwar Pds Mandal (1929) 181 IC 455 (Pat.), Surjya Narain Chowdhury v. Kunja Behary Mal (1921) 66 I C 909 (Cal.), Sikandar Khan v. Batumi Khan (1927) 8 Lah 617 and Kesho Ram v. Bhagwan Das AIR 1934 Lah 57.

4. On behalf of the appellant reference is made to the following.

1. Nritya Gopal Mitra Vs. Jorit Manjari Dasi and Others, AIR 1926 Cal 217 , 2. Radha Krishna Das Vs. Beni Madhab Das and Others, AIR 1932 Cal 552 , and 3. Daso Keshav Panohbhavi Vs. Karbasappa Kariyappa Mudhol, AIR 1926 Bom 121 .

5. In the first case review was granted by a suc- cessor to the District Judge after hearing the merits of the case decreeing the suit which had been dis- missed by his predecessor. It was held that a second a ppeai against this decree was permissible under Order XLVII rule 7 which says that the party dissatisfied with the order may , appeal not only agiiust that order but may take the same ob- jection in an appeal filed against the final decree.

6. The second case has no bearing. There it was held that if an order granting review Is set aside on an appeal from that order, all subsequent proceedings under the order appealed from necessarily fall through, and if a decree or order had been made in accordance with the review that is granted, it is not necessary for the aggrieved party to prefer another appeal from the said decree or order.

7. As regards the last cise it is sufficient to refer to the following note in "Chitaley's CPC at page, 3261;

In Bombay, O 43 r. 1 (w) has been deleted by a rule made by the High Court under S. 122 of the Code. In Bombay therefore, an order" granting a review is in any view appealable only if it falls under this rule.

8. Upon a consideration of these authorities, we hold that the preliminary objection succeeds. The: appeals are accordingl