1. The short question that arises for disposal in this case is “whether an appeal against an order dismissing an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C praying for the rejection of plaint is maintainable?”. The same is treated as the substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal.

2. The arguments advanced by Mr. D. Rajkumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and by Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent are heard. The relevant materials are also taken into consideration.

3. The plaintiff in the Original Suit figures as the appellant in the Second Appeal before this Court. He filed O.S.No.23 of 2012 seeking for a declaration that the cancellation of a joint will, dated 25.01.2002 by one of the joint testators was null and void and for a consequential injunction not to alienate the suit properties which were dealt with in the said will. The respondent/defendant, on her appearance filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.1039 of 2012 under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C praying for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint averments did not disclose any cause of action.

4. After hearing both sides, the learned trial Judge (Principal District Munsif, Nagercoil) dismissed the said application by an order dated 13.02.2013. Challenging the said order, the respondent herein (defendant) preferred an appeal as A.S.No.41 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil on the basis of her contention that the dismissal of the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C would be deemed to be a decree.

5. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil by a judgment and decree dated 04.02.2014 allowed the said appeal and rejected the plaint as prayed for by the respondent herein in her application in I.A.No.1039 of 2012 filed before the trial Court. Since the said decree of the appellate Court came to be passed in a regular appeal, the plaintiff is before this Court with the Second Appeal.

6. Without adverting to the merits of the case of the respondent regarding her prayer for rejection of plaint, the appellant confines his challenge to the decree of the lower Appellate Court, on the question of maintainability of an appeal against the order dismissing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.

7. Taking this Court through the relevant provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the definition of “decree” found in Section 2(2) and the Rules under Order 43, learned counsel appearing for the appellant advanced an argument that only in a case of rejection of plaint, the same shall be deemed to be a decree and hence, it shall be appealable.

8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that if an order is not deemed to be a decree in accordance with Section 2(2), then as per Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, no appeal against any order shall lie, unless such an appeal is specifically provided anywhere in the body of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or by any other law for the time being in force.

9. Referring to the said Section, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the Rules under Order 43 C.P.C, wherein an order returning a plaint for presentation in the proper Court, except where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A has been followed, alone has been made an appealable order and an order dismissing such an application or the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C has not been made an appealable order under the Rules found under Order 43 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits that there is no other law making an order dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 an appealable order and there is no other provision anywhere in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 making such an order appealable.

11. On the other hand, Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram, learned counsel appearing for the re