Research: Whether Order 7 Rule 11 is appealable?

 In the case of Sayyed Ayaz Ali v. Prakash G. Goyal and Ors., it was held that the
definition of “decree” under Section 2(2) would include rejection of a plaint, thereby
making an order rejecting the plaint, subject to a first appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
The definition of "decree" in Section 2(2) "shall be deemed to include the
rejection of a plaint". Hence, the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is
subject to a first appeal Under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The
writ petition filed by the Appellant was liable to be rejected on that ground. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the High Court rejecting the writ petition, though
for the above reason leave it open to the Appellant to pursue the remedy available
in law.

 In the case of Molugu Ram Reddy and Ors. v. Molugu Vittal Reddy and Ors., it was
held that a judgment rejecting a plaint would come under a “decree” which makes it
appealable under Section 96. However, a miscellaneous appeal against order rejecting the
plaint would not lie.

25. In the result for the above reasons, the reference is answered as follows. On
the true construction of Sections 2(2), 2(9), 2(14) and Sections 96, 104 and 105 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, the conclusion is irresistible that a judgment
rejecting a plaint is "decree" and is appealable under Section 96. A
miscellaneous appeal against an order rejecting the plaint would not lie. There is
a much consensus of judicial opinion that supports this conclusion. A Plaintiff,
who is aggrieved by rejection of the plaint for any of the reasons as contemplated
under Order VII Rule 11(a) to (f), is entitled to file a regular appeal under
Section 96, and a miscellaneous appeal under Section 104 read with Order XLIII
Rule 1 is barred.
 In the case of Rakesh Singhai v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh, the respondent filed a
civil suit for declaration and delivery of possession which was dismissed by the trial
Court under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Against this order, an appeal was filed. The court
opined that if no decree is drawn and the plaint is dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11 of
CPC, it would be proper for the appellate Court to issue direction to the trial Court to
draw a decree and thereafter, the appeal can be heard.
That may be so, but in the present case, no decree has been drawn by the trial
Court. This Court has considered the effect of non-drawing of decree and
definition of decree in the matter of Jai Narain Charitable Registered Society vs.
Smt. Kumud Verma and others reported in AIR 1999 MP 37. This Court has
observed that if no decree is drawn and the plaint is dismissed under Order 7
Rule 11 of CPC, it would be proper for the appellate Court to issue direction to
the trial Court to draw a decree and thereafter, the appeal can be heard.
However, on this ground, the appeal cannot be dismissed.