RAINA, J. : - The following questions have been referred to this Bench by the learned single Judge for decision :

(i) Whether rejection of a plaint on grounds other than those specified in Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounts to a decree?

(ii) Whether the dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with the provisions of Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounts to a decree and is as such appealable?

2. The aforesaid questions arose before one of us (Raina, J.) in civil revision No. 825 of 1971 - Mst. Chamarin v. Sukhram - in the following circumstances. The petitioner had filed a suit against the non-applicant for a declaration that she was entitled to half share in 4.37 acres of land and for joint possession of her share. On an application filed by the defendants under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') for better particulars an order was passed by the trial Judge on 3-7-1971 directing the petitioner to furnish better particulars. The petitioner furnished certain particulars; but as, in the opinion of the Court, proper particulars had not been furnished, the suit was dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner came up in revision before this Court.

3. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the non-applicant that the order in question, being appealable, the revision petition should not be entertained. In support of his contention the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Nagpur High Court in Nazir Abbas Sujjat Ali v. Raza Azamshah Raja Suleman Shah, AIR 1941 Nag 223. In that case it was held that the order of dismissal of a suit for non-compliance with an order under Order 6, Rule 5 of the Code amounts to a decree within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code and hence an appeal lies from it. The observations of Bose, J. (as he then was) in the last paragraph of the judgment suggest that in such cases the dismissal amounts to rejection of the plaint.

4. In Civil Revision No. 542 of 1962, decided on 16-8-1963 : 1963 MPLJ (Notes) 249, Rajobai v. Kaluram, Shiv Dayal, J. held that where the rejection of a plaint does not fall within the purview of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, the order is not a decree within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code. The suit in that case had not been dismissed for failure to furnish particulars; but on the basis of the reasoning adopted in that case it can be urged that the dismissal did not amount to rejection of the plaint on one of the grounds specified in Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code, and, therefore, did not amount to a decree within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code. In order to resolve the apparent conflict between the two decisions, the aforesaid questions have been referred to this Bench for decision.

5. We shall first address ourselves to the question whether rejection of a plaint on grounds other than those specified in Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code amounts to a decree within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Code. The said sub-section is re-produced below for facility of reference:

" '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 47 or 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."

6. From the language of the sub-section it is clear that a