ORDER :

P. Naveen Rao, J.

1. Heard Sri G. Simhadri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri J. Venkateshwara Reddy, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants. Plaintiff filed OS No. 432 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal seeking to grant decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, workmen, employees and persons who represented on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is 426 Sq.yards of land in Survey No. 205/D/E of Waddepally Village, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. The respondents/defendants filed JA No. 281 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the CPC) praying to reject the plaint.

3. Having regards to the order, which is proposed to be passed, the Court is not dwelling deep into the inter se dispute. Suffice to note that on considering the respective submissions, the Trial Court, by order dated 04.10.2021, allowed the said IA with costs and rejected the plaint. Challenging the said order and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision.

4. When the revision was presented before the Registry, the Registry raised objection on maintainability of civil revision petition holding that against the order rejecting the plaint, appeal alone would lie under Section 96 CPC and the revision is not maintainable.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner replied to the office objection as under:

"(1) Re-submission : The CRPSR No. 36417 of 2021 is filed against order dated 04.10.2021 in IA No. 281 of 2021 in OS No. 432 of 2014 in which respondents/defendants have filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the same was allowed against the same CRP.

(2) Now the CRPSR No. 36417 of 2021 is returned stating that how the CRP is maintainable stating that against the order passed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.

(3) Under Order XLHI CPC an appeal shall lie from the following order under provision of Section 104 remedy.

(a) An order under Rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper aspect where the procedure specified in Rule 10-A of Order VII has been followed than only appeal lies.

However, the present CRPSR No. 36417 of 2021 is filed against order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC against the order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Appeal is not maintainable. Therefore, CRP is only remedy. Accordingly, in accordance with Order XLUI CPC, if your authority not satisfied, post CRP for orders of the Court."

6. Not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, revision is listed before this Court for orders of the Court.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under challenge is an order made in an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. In view of the provision in Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC, no appeal shall lie and therefore the revision is maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 09.08.2021 in Srihari Hanumandas Totla v. Hemant Vithal Kamat and others, CA No. 4665 of 2021, 2021 (5) ALD 98 (SC).

8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that though the Trial Court considered the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but having accepted preliminary objection raised by the respondents on maintainability of the suit, the Trial Court rejected the plaint. Once plaint is rejected decree ensues and it is a decree as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC. Against the judgment and decree, remedy is only in the form of an appeal under Section 96 of CPC and revision is not maintainable. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the reference answered by the Division Bench in Molugu Ram Reddy and others v. Molugu Vittal Reddy and others, 2011 (5) ALD 522 (FB).

9. I have carefully considered