1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2626 OF 2009 Laxman Baburao Malhane .. Petitioner versus Yashwant Ananda Ahire & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Dilip Bodake for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Haridas h/f Mr.P.N.Joshi for respondent Nos.1,4, 6 to 10. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 24th September 2009. P.C.: . Head learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The trial Court framed preliminary issues. The first preliminary issue was as regards the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit. The second issue was as regards maintainability of the suit in the light of the decision of the Mamlatdar’s Court. By the impugned order, the Court came to the conclusion that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The operative part of the order refers to Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code). The paragraph 16 of the order records a finding that the plaint cannot be returned as a Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The operative part of the impugned order shows that the plaint has been rejected in exercise of powers under Rule 11 of Order 2 VII of the said Code. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the plaint has not been rejected as the impugned order shows that the plaint has not been accepted. 3. I have considered the submissions. The suit was registered and infact preliminary issues were framed in the suit. There is a specific finding recorded by the trial Court that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The learned trial Judge has relied upon section 26 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906 and has come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred. The learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order has used the Marathi word "Asvikrut (अिििकृत)". The correct meaning of the said word considering the context in which the same is used is “reject”. Thus, the operative part of the impugned order clearly shows that the plaint has been rejected. In view of section 2(2) of the said Code, order rejecting a plaint is a decree within the meaning of the said Code. As the impugned order is a decree, it can be subjected to an appeal under section 96 of the said Code. In view of availability of statutory remedy of appeal, the writ petition is not entertained and the same is rejected by keeping the remedy open. It is obvious that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding issue of jurisdiction and all questions on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)