THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 1195 OF 2006 Date: 03-02-2011 Between: Mallela Somaraju and another .. Petitioners And Meripe Venkatesh and 2 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 1195 OF 2006 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. The record shows that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 have been served but they did not choose to appear. 3. It is seen that the petitioners presented plaint in S.R.No.4350 of 2005 dated 28.03.2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. The said suit was filed for a perpetual prohibitory injunction. It is not necessary to go into other details. It would be sufficient to know that the trial court rejected the plaint by its order dated 05.04.2005 giving its reasons and it is not necessary to mention the said reasons also in this order. 4. Thereafter, the petitioners presented C.M.A.No.20 of 2005 treating the above rejection order of the trial court as an interlocutory order. It should, however, be noted that according to Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an order rejecting the plaint should be treated as a decree and, therefore, such an order becomes appealable like a decree. It appears that the Appellate Court i.e. the Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kovvur did not notice the above legal position and entertained the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal treating the rejection order as an interlocutory order. 5. The Appellate Court by giving its reasons has dismissed C.M.A.No.20 of 2005 by its order dated 17.10.2005. Questioning that order, the plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition. 6. As already seen supra, an order rejecting the plaint has to be treated as a decree and thus, it becomes appealable like a decree. Against the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint, the petitioners should have filed a regular first appeal before the Appellate Court and if that appeal has been dismissed, they should have come up with a Second Appeal. It may be noted that the petitioners paid a court fee of Rs.486/- in the trial court and by paying the same court fee or the other required court fee, they should have filed a first appeal before the Appellate Court and if they had been unsuccessful, then, they would have filed a Second Appeal. Thus, the whole procedure followed by the lower Appellate Court and the Registry in registering this matter as Civil Revision Petition, is not correct. Hence, setting aside the order of the Appellate Court, the matter is sent back to the Appellate Court with a direction to it to collect the necessary court fee and treat it as a regular appeal and dispose it of afresh. The Registry shall dispatch the records immediately and the petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Court on 04.03.2011 and pay the necessary court fee, failing which the matter before the Appellate Court shall stand rejected. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 3rd February, 2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR C.R.P. NO. 1195 OF 2006 Date: 03-02-2011 MR