IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2301 of 2006 1. Mostt.Rukmini Devi 2. Yogendra Mahto 3. Sri Mathura Mahto 4. Dilip Mahto All resident of Mohalla Durukhi Gali , Muradpur P.S. Pirbahore Dist. Patna Plaintiffs-petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Collector, Patna 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Sadar, Patna 3. Sri Shyam Babu Yadav, s/o Late Raghunandan Gope resident of Mohalla Durukhi Gali , Muradpur P.S. Pirbahore Dist. Patna Defendants- Opposite parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr Surendra Nath, Advocate For the State: Mr Ajay Kumar Sharma AC to AAG III ------------- 6 4.9.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The plaintiffs-petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.5.2006 whereby the Munsif Ist, Patna has rejected the plaint of Title Suit No.11 of 2006 on the ground of being barred under section 16 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 under Order 7 Rule 11(D) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as „the Code‟). The stamp reporter has raised objection regarding maintainability of the civil revision as the impugned order having been passed rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, the proper course for challenging that - 2 - order would be by filing appeal before the appropriate court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is not covered under Order XLIII Rule I of the Code, the same not being appelable order, the only course open before the petitioners was to file civil revision for the purpose of challenging that order. I do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of the petitioners. Decree has been defined under section 2( 2) of he Code which is being quoted as under:- “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include- (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation,- A decree is preliminary when further procdedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final; XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX” - 3 - It is manifest on bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that the order rejecting a plaint would be deemed to be a decree. There is provision of filing appeals from the original decree under section 96 read with Order XLI of the Code. In view of that, in my considered opinion, the order rejecting the plaint being a decree is appelable. Thus, this Court is constrained to hold that this civil revision is not maintainable and is accordingly, dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appropriate court. It is also made clear that this civil revision was time barred and I.A. No. 5868 of 2006 had been filed for condoning the delay in filing the civil revision but this Court had not formed any opinion with regard to the merit aforesaid interlocutory application, which was to be considered at the time of admission of the civil revision, for the reasons that that this civil revision itself has been held by this court to be not maintainable. shahid (Dr. Ravi Ranjan , J)