Daya Chaudhary, J.

This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala.

2. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondents-defendants. During pendency of the suit, respondent-defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint which was allowed vide order dated 11.01.2016.

3. Aggrieved by said order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, which was dismissed being not maintainable vide order dated 10.01.2017.

4. Now the legal representatives of deceased petitioner-Narain Singh, has approached this Court by way of filing the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala by raising various grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala is contrary to the facts and law. While passing impugned order by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala, it has been mentioned that under Order 7, Rule 11, no appeal lies against the order of rejection of application, which was allowed by the trial Court. It is also mentioned in the impugned order that revision would be maintainable before the High Court. Learned counsel also submits that by rejecting the plaint, the rights of the parties are affected and it is deemed to be decree and the same is appealable.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case Vineet Handa v. M/s OZO Media Estate Limited and others 2011(1) CivCC 98.

7. The facts relating to filing of suit and moving an application by respondent-defendant No.2 under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC and allowing the same by the trial Court are not disputed. The appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of trial Court dated 11.01.2016 was dismissed on the ground that the appeal is not maintainable and only the revision is maintainable. The order of rejection of plaint passed by the trial Court is a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Code.

8. As per provisions of Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC, the remedy is to file appeal. The appeal against the said order is maintainable before the District Judge. The decree has been defined under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (here-in-after referred to as the 'Code') which is as under :-

"Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

2. Definition - In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,-

(1) xx xx

(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include -

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation - A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final."

Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

"10. Return of plaint- (1) Subject to the provisions of Rule 10A, the plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.

Explanation: For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that a Court of appeal or revision may direct, after setting aside the decree passed in a suit, the return of the plaint under this sub-rule.

(2) Procedure on returning plaint - On returning a plaint, the Judge shal