Dr. T. N. Singh, J.-- 1. Having entertained grave doubt about maintainability of the three letters Patent Appeals listed before us for admission and interim relief, we decided to hear counsel. Indeed, respondents having been noticed on the question of ad mission and having entered appearance, it was possible to hear their counsel who pressed vigorously the preliminary objection of maintainability of the appeals. We purpose to dispose of by this common order, all the three appeals-Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of 1987-as a common question arises in these appeals and we have taken the view that the preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeals must prevail.

2. A learned Single Judge of this Court passed orders on 11-2-1987, separately, in three Misc. Civil Appeals wherein orders of learned District Judge passed in civil suits were challenged. Those orders were passed by learned District Judge on applications of plaintiffs made under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151, C. P. C., seeking appropriate directions against the defendants restraining them from doing certain acts pending disposal of the suits. Because the learned District Judge made certain directions against them, the defendants appealed to this Court successfully. Plaintiffs/respondents, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, have preferred these appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

3. Although much argument was advanced to us on the connotations and implications of the word 'judgment", occurring in clause 10 aforesaid, we have taken a different view of the matter. We would appropriately deal with counsel's contention and analyse the language of clause 10 of Letters Patent, but we would first extract relevant portions of Sections 4, 105 and 106 C. P. C. :

"4. Savings.-(1) In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special or local law now in force or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any other law for the time being in force.

104. Orders from which appeal lies -(1) Appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders :-

xxx xxx xxx

(i) any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.

105. Other orders.-(l) Save as otherwise expressly provided, no appeal shall lie from any order made by a Court in the exercise of its original or appellate jurisdiction; but, where a decree is appealed from, any error, defect or irregularity in any order, affecting the decision of the case, may be set forth as a ground of objection in the memorandum of appeal.

xxx xxx xxx

106. What Courts to hear appeals-Where an appeal from any order is allowed it shall lie to the Court to which an appeal would lie from the decree in the suit in which such order was made, or where such order is made by a Court (not being a High Court) in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, then to the High Court."

What cannot be disputed is that clause (i) of section 104 (1) refers evidently to the provisions specifically of Order 43, Rule 1 which refers expressly to section 104 to say that appeals would lie from the orders enumerated in the different clauses thereof. Clause (r) of Rule 1 of order 43 speaks of an order passed under Rules 1, 2, 2A, 4 and 10 of order 39, C. P. C.

4. Reading conjointly sub-section (2) of section 104 and giving due importance to the expressions "save as otherwise expressly provided" which occur in sub-sections (1) of both sections• 104 and 105, in the context of the provision of section 106, we entertain no doubt at all that no appeal is contemplated under Code of Civil Procedure against an "order" (as distinguished from a "decree") except those mentioned