CRP 132/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MADAN B. LOKUR The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 7.2.2011 passed by the Civ il Judge, Dhubri in Misc. Appeal No.34 of 2008. The suit of the plaintiff was originally dismissed by an order dated 8.1 0.2007 on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to adduce evidence of PWs des pite adequate opportunity having been granted. Feeling aggrieved by the order dismissing the suit, the plaintiff prefer red an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that application came to be dismissed by an order dated 27.8.2008. According to the learned Munsiff who dismissed the application, the application was not maintaina ble since the suit was dismissed under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred a Miscellaneous Appeal N o.34 of 2008, out of which the present impugned order has arisen. On perusal of the order dated 7.2.2011, I find that the appeal filed by the plaintiff has been allowed and the matter has been remitted back to the Tri al Court for deciding the application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the application under Ord er 9, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. is not maintainable. Whether on merits the application is maintainable or not, this is a matt er that can be decided by the learned Trial Judge. I do not find any error in the decision of the Civil Judge in allowing t he appeal against the order passed under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Pr ocedure. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the revision petition. The petitioner is at liberty to raise objection that may be permissible in oppositi on to Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by him. The parties will appear before the Trial Court on 26th September, 2011. The revision petition stands dismissed.