The main legal point established is that under Section 96 of the CPC, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 25-6-2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal as not maintainable.

2. The plaintiff-petitioners had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents. The suit was contested by the defendants. Following issues were framed :

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP.

2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

3. Whether this civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?

4. Relief."

3. Out of the aforesaid four issues, issue Nos. 2 and 3 were treated as preliminary issues vide order dated 16-5-2003. Both these issues were dealt with together by the trial Court and were decided in favour of the defendants and it was held that the suit was not maintainable in the present form and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed and it was directed that the decree-sheet be prepared, vide judgment and decree dated 30-5-2003. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the District Judge, during summer vacations. The learned Additional District Judge (Vacation Judge), vide order dated 25-6-2003, dismissed the said appeal at the preliminary stage holding that the appeal, filed by the plaintiffs against the aforesaid judgment and decree, dated 30-5-2003, was not maintainable and could not be admitted to a regular hearing and the same was ordered to be rejected. Aggrieved against this order dated 25-6-2003, passed by the Additional District Judge, the plaintiffs filed the present revision petition in this Court. Notice of motion was issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted before me that the trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that the suit was not maintainable and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. A decree-sheet was also prepared. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge, during summer vacations, illegally dismissed the appeal holding that no such appeal lay against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court and that the appeal was not maintainable and ordered the same to be rejected. It has been submitted that the appeal before the District Judge was maintainable against the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 30-5-2003, passed by the trial Court, whereby the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on the ground that the same was not maintainable and that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the present suit. It has been submitted that the learned Additional District Judge had erred in law in dismissing the appeal placing reliance on Swaran V/s. Gram Panchayat, Malikpur, 1998 (2) Pun LJ 172. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents submitted before me that the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly Justified in dismissing the appeal being not maintainable as no appeal lay against the Judgment and decree dated 30-5-2003 passed by the learned trial Court. Reliance was placed on Swarans case (supra) as also on the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case reported as Durga Prasad V/s. Naveen Chandra (1996) 3 SCC 300.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, in my opinion, the present revision petition must be allowed and the .order dated 25-6-2003, passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge must be set aside and the case remanded for decision of the appeal afresh, in accordance with law. As referred to above, on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court had framed various issues and two of the issues, referred to above, were treated as preliminary Issue