Shivdayal, C. J.-

1. The order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint amounted to a decree within the meaning of the definition of that term in S. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was, therefore, appealable. The appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the suit for trial. The order of the appellate Court falls within the purview of Order 41, Rule 23, CPC in as much as the decision of the trial Court was on a preliminary point. Thus, the order of the appellate Court was appealable under Order 43, Rule 1, C.P.C. See. Madhav v. Keshoo, 27 MPLC 359=AIR 1941 Nag 304. This revision is, therefore, not competent. It will, however, be treated as a Miscellaneous appeal, as prayed by Shri Sapre in his application of today.

2. Jwalaprasad and four sons of Shyamlal brought this suit against Motilal and Shivkumar in respect of certain lands of which they were in possession as Pujaris (See-paragraph 6 of the plaint). However, in the prayer clause they claimed a decree for declaration of ownership and injunction.

3. The trial Court found that no cause of action was disclosed in the plaint and accordingly rejected it under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. The plaintiffs a