* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1214 OF 2010 % 05-08-2011 # Meka Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Raghavayya, aged about 47 years, R/o.Mekavaripalem, Challipalli Mandal, Krishna District. … Petitioner Vs. $ Tutaram Venkata Jaya Rama Krishna Vara Prasad, S/o.late Mallikharjunudu, aged about 45 years, Hindu, Employee, R/o.H.No.7-1-621/303/5/2003, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K.Chidambaram < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. AIR 1957 AP 330 2. 2004 (2) ALD 817 3. APLJ 412 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1214 OF 2010 DATE:05-08-2011 BETWEEN Meka Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner AND Tutaram Venkatajaya Rama Krishna Vara Prasad …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1214 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. is directed against the orders of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, dated 6.11.2009, whereby I.A.No.1321 of 2008 in O.S.No.57 of 2008 filed under Order 7, 14 Rule 11 and 2 C.P.C. to decide the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and to dismiss the suit as barred by limitation was allowed. After elaborately discussing on the point of limitation, the lower Court by the impugned order allowed the I.A. deciding the preliminary issue against the plaintiff-petitioner herein and dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. Since the order is a composite order, both I.A. and the suit were heard together to decide the issue whether the suit is barred by limitation. On the substantial plea taken by the 5th defendant that the suit is barred by limitation, the same was tried as a preliminary issue as prayed by the 5th defendant in the impugned I.A. and in the process, the lower Court went into the question of limitation in the suit on the preliminary issue so framed and accordingly dismissed the suit, against which, only an appeal lies but not a revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the decisions of this Court in Jakkampati Rangaiah v. Kunala Peddireddi[1]; V.Haritha and another v. Kapil Chit Funds Private Limited and others[2]; a n d Kantipudi Lalitha Lakshmi Manohar Saraswathi v. Kantipudi Ramakrishna[3]. But in the present case, the impugned order is not a consequential order and therefore, the said decisions are misplaced to the facts of the present case. Under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of C.P.C., a ‘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. Under the explanation to the said definition, a decree is preliminary when further proceedings 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. From the above definition, it is clear that dismissing the suit as barred by limitation is final as the adjudication on the ground of limitation will have the effect of finally disposing of the suit, against which, an appeal lies under Section 96 of C.P.C. Whether the I.A. can be tried as a preliminary issue as a result of which, it was tried as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit also can be agitated in the appeal under Section 105(1) C.P.C. In view of the above, the present revision is not maintainable under Section 115 C.P.C. The revision is accordingly rejected. Registry is directed to return the originals to the counsel for the petitioner for enabling him to file an appeal. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. AUGUST 05, 2011 Tsr. [1] AIR 1957 AP 330 [2] 2004 (2) ALD 817 [3] APLJ 412