17.09.2026 Court No.2 Item No.7 sudipta IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 4499 of 2024 Sanchita Panchadhyai nee Parua @ Sanchita Parua Vs. Goutam Panchadhyai Mr. Sunny Nandy Mr. Dipranjan Mukhopadhyay Mr. Subha Pathak Ms. Yamini Tiwari …for the petitioner Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh Mr. Sandipan Pal Mr. Niladri Mondal …for the opposite party 1. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits at the outset that the present revision petition is not maintainable as an appeal is provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Reliance has been placed upon The Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society Vs. Ameena Begum & Anr. reported in [2023] 15 SCR 841 wherein it was, inter alia, held as under: “15. Against the order passed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC rejecting an application for seeking setting aside the decree passed ex-parte, an appeal is provided. When an application is filed seeking condonation of delay for seeking setting aside an ex-parte decree and the same is dismissed and consequently, the petition is also dismissed, the appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC is maintainable. Thus, an appeal only against the refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree is maintainable whereas if an order allowing such an application is passed, the same is not appealable. 16, Thus, when an application or petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed, the defendant can 2 avail a remedy by preferring an appeal in terms of Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC would not arise when an application/petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is dismissed. Thus, when an alternative and effective appellate remedy is available to a defendant, against an ex-parte decree, it would not be appropriate for the defendant to resort to filing of revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging the order refusing to set aside the order of setting the defendant ex-parte. In view of the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC being available, revision under Section 115 of the CPC filed in the instant case was not maintainable. 17. When there is an express provision available under the CPC or any statute under which an appeal is maintainable, by-passing the same, a Revision Petition cannot be fled. Il is needless to observe that in the absence of an appellate remedy, a revision may be maintainable. 18. It is clarified that once the Trial Court dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, and consequently, the main petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC also stood dismissed which is also noted by the trial Court as "In the result, the petition is dismissed". 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present revision petition with liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law. 3. Liberty granted. 4. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. 5. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no expressions made herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case. 6. Certified copies, if any, be returned as per law. 3 7. All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)