Ghose and Pratt, JJ.
1. 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 Section 103, Code of Civil Procedure, for the purpose of reviving an application made under Section 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. The question of the right of appeal in such a ease seems to have been considered in the cases of Ningappa v. Gangawa (1885) I.L.R. 10 Bom. 433 and Raja v. Sriniwasa (1888) I.L.R. 11 Mad. 319. In the first mentioned case, the principle underlying a decision of this Court in the case of Hurreenath Koondoo v. Modhoo Soodun Saha (1873) 19 W.R. 122 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.
2. This order will not affect the compromise which seems to have been entered into between two of the appellants and the respondents.
3. The said compromise will be recorded.