did not hold that a revision will lie against the first order, after the final order is passed in the application. The facts of that case reveal that a petition filed to set aside the ex-parte decree was allowed on terms. But the order did not provide that if cost is not paid, petition will stand dismissed. Following the decision of the Madras High Court in Ramayya v. Lakshmayya (AIR 1944 Mad. 383) and Kotaiah v. Narasimhan (AIR 1949 Mad. 469), it was found that unless the order is a self-working order, first order cannot be challenged by filing an appeal, and appeal will lie only against the second order. In that case, appeal challenging the first order was dismissed as not maintainable. This Court allowed the C.M.P. filed by the party to treat it as a revision, and as the first order is revisable and it was allowed as the order was revised. But that cannot be applied to a case where even before filing the revision, by dismissing the petition for nonpayment of cost, the petition was finally dismissed. In such a case, remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge the final order. In the final order, he is definitely entitled to challenge the first order directing to pay cost. As appeal will lie against the impugned order, revision will not lie. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the order in an appeal.
