1. Plaintiff/petitioner, aggrieved by the order dated 16-12-2003 passed by the Subordinate Judge-IVth, patna, in Title Suit No.151 of 1997, rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has preferred this civil revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ).

2. The Stamp Reporter has objected to the maintainability of the civil revision application and according to it rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a decree within the meaning of Sec.2 (2) of the Code and as such appeal would lie.

3. Petitioner contested the stamp report. By order dated 11-10-2004 without adjudicating the question of maintainability of the civil revision application the civil revision application was admitted for hearing. Ultimately, matter came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 18-4-2006. In its opinion there is apparent conflict between the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar thakur and Ors. V/s. Bhagwati Devi and Ors. , 1982 PLJR 167 : AIR 1982 Pat 75 and the division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rameshwar Thakur and Ors. V/s. Neeraj Kumar Thakur and Ors. , 1996 (1)PLJR 494. Accordingly, the learned Single judge referred the matter to be adjudicated by a larger Bench. Under the orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice this application has come for consideration before us.

4. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession of the suit land and also sought declaration that the Ladavi deed dated 15-11-1999 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant no.1 is void, fraudulent, illegal and inoperative. Plaintiff also sought ad interim injunction against defendant No.1 from interfering with his possession. Defendant No.1 appeared in the suit and filed an application under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for rejection of the plaint. Subordinate Judge IV, patna, by the impugned order rejected the plaint inter alia holding that the document was fraudulently and collusively created and the registration of the document at Calcutta is in teeth of law. It also held that the plaint has been presented on insufficient stamp paper and it is also hit by the law of limitation.

5. It is common ground that after rejection of the plaint decree has been drawn. Mr. V. Nath appears for the petitioner. In fairness to him, he submits that in view of sec. 2 (2) of the Code, rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code is a decree but the trial Court has disposed of the case on a preliminary point without deciding the dispute on merit, the rejection of the plaint will not amount to decree as there was no determination of the rights of the parties. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ravneshwar thakur and Ors. , (supra), and our attention has been drawn to Paragraph 15 of the judgment which reads as follows : "in the above premises I would hold that rejection of memorandum of appeal on the ground of limitation is not appealable in all the cases. Where the appeal is against a decision of the trial Court on merits, that is, where the trial Court has decided the dispute on merit or, in other words, determined the rights of the parties, such rejection could amount to decree and be, therefore, appealable. Where, however, the trial Court has disposed of the case on a preliminary point or on technical ground without deciding the dispute on merit, the in limine rejection of the memorandum will not amount to decree as there was no determination of the rights of the parties by the trial Court and the principle laid down in Sheodan Singhs case, AIR 1966 SC 1332 will not be applicable. In such cases revision will be maintainable. The question is answered accordingly. "

6. Re