1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 732 OF 2008 Chetan Vasant Puranik & ors........Appellant. versus M/s. Suyojit Buld Tech P.Ltd. & ors....... Respondents. Mr. V.Z. Kankaria for the Applicant Mr. Ramesh D. Soni with Vipin Kasle with Mrs. Neha Bhide for the Respondents 11 & 12. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 22ND AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. This Appeal against Order is filed under Order 43 of the Civil Procedure Code taking an exception to the order passed by the trial court allowing an application moved by the original Defendant nos. 11 and 12 and directing their deletion from the array of Defendants by having recourse to the provisions of Order I Rule 10. Aggrieved by the said order the present A.O. has been filed. 2. At the outset the learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the 2 A.O. on the ground that neither section 104 nor Order 43 provides for filing of Appeal against Order passed under Order 1 Rule 10 and thus the present Appeal is misconceived. The preliminary objection of the maintainability of A.O. Is well merited. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has placed reliance on two judgments in (1) Lalsa Motisa Shop, Ellichpur Vs. Bhagwant Ramji Naik Kanao and ors reported in (28) A.I.R. 1941 Nagpur 166 and (2) Shair Ali Vs. Jagmohan Ram and anr. Reported in A.I.R. 1931 Allahabad 333 (2). In the facts of the case, some of the Defendants were discharged by the trial Court by passing an order under Order 1 Rule 10 by observing that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the said Defendants. The said order was called in question by filing a revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the order discharging Defendants on the ground that there was no cause of action against them amounts to a decree having regard to the definition in section 2 (2) of CPC, in as much as there is a formal expression of an adjudication which so far as refers the courts expressing it conclusively determines the rights of the parties. Having so found the Court concluded that the order passed under Order 1 Rule 10 in the said case has to be construed as a decree and hence proceeded to direct that the revision be treated as memorandum of appeal with a further direction to place the same before Division Bench. Once it is found that the impugned 3 order was a decree, then the decree would be appealable as provided under the CPC meaning thereby by having recourse to section 96. In the second judgment i.e. AIR 1931 Allahabad, instead of filing an appeal against the order, a revision was filed. In the said case also revisional court found that the order passed under Order 1 Rule 10 was a decree and hence could have been only challenged by filing an appeal and not a revision. Revision thus came to be dismissed. 3. These judgments do not advance the case of the appellant any further. Section 104 read with Order 43 constitutes a complete code and only such of the orders, which are made appealable under the said provisions can be subjected to appeal against order. No appeal is provided for either under section 104 or under Order 43 against an order passed under Order 1 Rule 10. Hence the present appeal is misconceived and is dismissed. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)