An order holding that a suit is not maintainable in respect of certain property amounts to a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as it conclusively determines the right of the parties in respect of those properties and the suit is also disposed of so far those properties are concerned.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/appellant filed a Title Suit No. 52 of 2002 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bongaon against the defendants-respondents praying for a decree declaring the right, title and interest of appellant in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from entering the suit property and from disturbing the peaceful possession of the appellant in the suit property. It appears that the defendants-respondents are the two daughters of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/appellant has alleged that the plaintiff purchased two adjacent plots of Bastu land in the name of his wife in the years 1973 and 1978 and the plaintiff had built a pucca dwelling house on the said land and that the plaintiff's wife was only a 'benamdar' but the actual owner of the property is the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants-respondents, sometime in the year 2002, tried to enter into the plaintiff's property and declared that they are the present owners of the suit property having purchased the same from their mother. The plaintiff has alleged that the deeds through which the defendants are claiming title to the suit property are forged deeds and that the plaintiff's wife, who was suffering from cancer at the materjal time, was not at all in a position to execute any such deeds. The plaintiff has challenged such deeds through which the defendants are claiming title to the suit property.

( 3 ) THAT the learned trial Court by order dated 27. 02. 2002 granted an ad-interim order of injunction directing the defendants not to interfere with the present position of the suit property and not to disturb the status-quo position as regards the possession, user and nature and character of the suit property till the disposal of the injunction-petition. It appears that the defendants-respondents filed a petition alleging that the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant is not maintainable on various grounds and prayed for hearing of the said petition and also for dismissal of the said suit on the ground of non-maintainability. That by order dated 17. 03. 2003 the learned trial Court passed an order whereby the learned trial Court decided the question of non-maintainability as a preliminary issue and held that the suit is maintainable.

( 4 ) THAT challenging such order dated 17. 03. 2003 the defendants-respondents filed a civil revision case being C. R. No. 49 of 2003 and by order dated 27. 02. 2004 the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, bongaon allowed the said civil revision case by setting aside the order dated 17. 03. 2003. That challenging the said order dated 27. 02. 2004, the plaintiff filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (C. O. No. 703 of 2004) in this Court.

( 5 ) HIS Lordship The Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta by order dated 04. 05. 2004 was pleased to reject the revisional application by holding inter alia that the aforesaid order dated 27. 02. 2004 passed by the learned Revisional court below is an appealable order and as such the revisional application before this Court is not maintainable. It appears from a copy of the said order dated 04. 05. 2004 that His Lordship The Hon'ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta was pleased to hold that when the suit itself has been dismissed the lis has come to an end as far as the trial Court is concerned and therefore it is a final adjudication of the suit and the order of dismissal amounts to a decree and is, therefore, appealable. His Lordship was of the view that there is no question of entertaining the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff/appellant has thereafter preferred the present second appeal.

( 6 ) IT appears from a perusal of the judgment which is under challenge in this appeal that arguments were advanced on behalf of the respective parties before the lear