We think that the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondent in this case must prevail, namely, that no appeal lies against the order of the Court below rejecting the application of the judgment-debtor, purporting to be one under sec. 103, C.C.P, for the purpose of reviving an application made render sec. 311 of the Code which had been dismissed for non-appearance of the judgment-debtor. The Code does not provide an appeal against such an order and the question of the right of appeal in such a case seems to have been considered in the cases of Raja v. Srinivasa and Ningappa v. Gangawa. In the first-mentioned case, the principle underlying a decision of this Court in the case of Haree Nath Koondoo v. Madhoo Sbodun Saha seems to have been approved of. And following the views expressed in these cases we hold that no appeal lies in this case. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make no order as to costs.
This order will not affect the compromise which seems to have been entered into between two of the Appellants and the Respondent. The said compromise will be recorded.
S.C.S
Appeal dismissed.