BEHERA, J.

( 1 ) IN this revision directed against the order passed by the additional District Judge, Keonjhar, refusing to condone the delay in preferring a Money Appeal presented under Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the 'code') and rejecting the memorandum of appeal, the question referred by our learned brother R. C. Patnaik, J. for a decision is as to whether an order rejecting a memorandum of appeal or dismissing an appeal following the rejection of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring an appeal is a decree. If it is, an appeal is competent and if it is not, a revision may lie. The reference has been made because of conflicting decisions of some High Courts including this Court.

( 2 ) THE operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge in the Money Appeal reads :

"in view of the discussion as made above, I do not find any sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal and the appeal is barred by limitation. Hence the appeal memo is rejected. "

No order of dismissal of the appeal has been passed and no decree has been drawn up.

( 3 ) IN ILR