ABDUL KHADER Vs. KHAJABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 9th august, 1995 dismissing the revisionist's-appellant judgment-debtor's r.a. No. 101 of 1995, on the ground that the appeal preferred was misconceived and not maintainable as the appeal was against the commissioner's report.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Sri goulay, learned counsel for the revisionist urged before me that the order impugned suffers from jurisdictional error; that the court below erred in holding that the appeal was misconceived and not maintainable, thereby the court below refused to exercise the jurisdiction invested. Further, Sri goulay submitted that the appeal was maintainable under order 43, Rule 1(i), as it is an appeal from the order and not an appeal from the decree. Sri goulay invited my attention to the Provisions of order 21, Rule 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure and order 43, Rule l(i) read with Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short, 'code'.

(3.) I have examined the contention of Sri goulay. The facts of the case in brief are that o.s. No. 53 of 1976, was filed by respondents 1(a) and (b) in the court of munsiff, bijapur for specific performance of contract to execute the sale deed and for possession of property bearing No. Cts 124/a of ward No. Vi, bijapur.