IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 43 of 2011 Trivendra Kumar S/O Late Sri Ramswaroop. … Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. … Respondents. Mr. T.A.Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the revisionist. Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date June 29, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 6383 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 20-5-2011, whereby the application (paper 8-C) moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the restoration application (paper no. 4-C) under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. moved by the petitioner have been rejected by the Additional District Judge/ I F.T.C. Nainital. Since by the impugned order, the restoration application moved under Order 9, Rule 9 C.P.C. has also been rejected, therefore, in view of the provisions of Order 43, Rule 1(c) of the C.P.C., an appeal is maintainable and not a revision, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents. Since the revisionist has statutory alternate remedy of appeal against the impugned order, I am not inclined to entertain the revision on the ground of alternate remedy. The revision is dismissed accordingly. However, liberty is given to the revisionist to file an appeal before the appropriate Forum. Certified copies of the documents including the impugned order filed by the revisionist be returned to him. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP