Carnduff and Richardson, JJ.:— This is an appeal against an order granting a review of judgment.
The first question that arises is whether it is competent or not.
Order XLVII, rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that an order rejecting an application for review shall not be appealable, but that an order granting such an application may be objected to on certain grounds. None of those grounds can be asserted in this case, and it is quite clear that, in so far as rule 7 of Order XLVII goes, no appeal lies.
But it is contended that an appeal lies under Order XLIII, rule 1, clause (w), which provides in general terms for an appeal against “an order under rule 4 of Order XLVII granting an application., for review.”
It has, on at least three occasions, been held by this Court that Order XLIII, rule 1, clause (w), must fee read with, and subject to, rule 7 of Order XLVII. We refer to the unreported decisions in Jugernath Pershad Singh v. Ram Autar Singh, Tripura Charan Kal v. Sorashi Bala and Surendra Nath Taludar v. Sita Nath Bass Gupta. Following those three decisions, we must hold that this appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed with costs.
S.K.B
Appeal dismissed.