JUDGMENT

1. The plaint in this suit was rejected by the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack on the ground of misjoinder of causes of action and of Defendants. In appeal the District Judge, while agreeing with the Subordinate Judge that as a matter of strict law each infringement of the Plaintiff's right is a separate cause of action, was of opinion that the rule against multifariousness is in the main one of convenience, and that the Court has a considerable discretion in dealing with the matter. He observed that all the Defendants had one principal defence in common, though they might each have different minor defences, and on the balance of convenience he held that all the matters in issue should be disposed of in one suit. He accordingly reversed the Subordinate Judge's finding on the preliminary issue and remanded the case for decision on the merits. The Defendants appeal to this Court under cl. 28 of sec. 588, C. P. C. A preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the Plaintiff that no appeal lies, it being urged that while an order rejecting a plaint is expressly included within the definition of "decree" in sec. 2 of the Code, the definition does not embrace an order refusing to all