SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the petitioners. The trial Court in terms of the order dated 13. 4. 2004 dismissed the suit. It may be noticed that the suit was not finally adjudicated on merits but the trial court found that the title of the respondents was defective and thus the suit ought to be dismissed. In fact, the trial Court has actually rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said code) though the phraseology used shows that the suit has been dismissed. The plaint has actually been rejected on the ground that the suit is barred by law as set out in Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 7 of the said Code. In the present proceedings the validity of the said order is not required to be examined and thus it would not be appropriate to comment on the merit of the adjudication by the trial Court.

( 2 ) THE respondents aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the learned additional District Judge. The petitioners raised an objection about the maintainability of the appeal in view of the suit being filed under the provisions of Section 6 of the said Act. The appellate Court in terms of the impugned order dated 24. 10. 2005 has held the appeal as maintainable. The said order is sought to be challenged in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of india.

( 3 ) IT has to be appreciated that the suit filed under Section 6 of the said Act is to be governed by the provisions of that section as it is a suit of a special nature. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act provides that no appeal lies from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal could not have been maintained by the first appellate Court in view of the pronouncement of the apex Court in Sanjay Kumar Pandey and Ors. v. Gulbahar Sheikh and Ors. , III (2004) SLT 749=ii (2004) CLT 292 (SC)= (2004) 4 SCC 664. The Supreme Court has held that in view of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the said Act, the remedy of an aggrieved party lies in filing a revision under Section 115 of the said Code or a regular suit based on title.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, seeks to contend that there is no adjudication on merits as the plaint has been rejected. Learned counsel thus submits by reference to the provisions of Order 4 of the said Code that a suit has to be instituted by presenting a plaint and only when a plaint complies with order 6 and Order 7 of the said Code would the said suit really be deemed to be instituted. Order 4 Rule 1 of the said Code reads as under:

"order IV institution OF SUITS 1. Suit to be commenced by plaint. (1) Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint in duplicate to the Court or such officer as it appoints in this behalf. (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and vii, so far as they are applicable. (3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in Sub-rules (1) and (2 ). "

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel thus submits that when the trial Court exercises jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the said Code, it amounts to rejection of a plaint presented at the threshold.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel also submits by reference to Section 2 (2) of the said Code that as per the deeming provisions contained therein an order passed for rejection of a plaint is deemed to be a decree and thus would be appealable. Section 2 (2) of the said Code reads as under:

"2. Definitions. In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context (1 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 'decree' means the formal expression