( 1 ) A common question of law arises in all these, tweny-two revision petitions. These revision petitions are riled against rejecion of plaints in different suits filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Munsiff, Hassan. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed those suits contending that the disciplinary enquiries poposed to be held by the Divisional Controller, Hassan, were beyond the pqwers of the said Divl. Controller, and, hence, he could not, in law, proceed to hold disciplinary enquiries against them and pass orders of dismissal or such other orders, and, therefore, the Court should declare, that the action that was taken and further proposed to, be taken by the divl. Controller, was beyond his powers and issue an injunction restraining him from proceeding further into the, proposed departmental enquiries against the petitioner-plaintiffs. ( 2 ) IT was contended on behalf of the Divi. Contoller that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the matter was governed by the, provisions of the industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, the suits were not maintainable and they were to be dismissed. ( 3 ) THE learned Munsiff inquired into this contention in regard to jurisdiction and concluded by placing reliance on a decision of this High Court in 1968 (2) Mysore Law Journal 194, 1968, (2) Mys. L. J. 194, that the jurisdiction of the Civil court was barred by law. He, therefore, rejected the plaints by applying the provisions of Or. 7, Rule 11 (d) CPC (to be hereinafter referred to as the Code ). These are the. orders challenged in these revision petitions. ( 4 ) SRI K. S. Puttaswamy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in all these matters, raised an objection that the revision petitions are incompetent in view of the specific provisions of S. 115 of the code and the rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree and such a decree is appealable under S. 96 of the Code and under S. 20 of the Karnataka civil Courts Act, 1864 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He urged that the Court of the, Civil Judge was the appellate, Co,urt and appeals against such decrees ought to have been filed before that Court. He pointed qut that this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers under S. 115 of the Code under these circumstances. He urged that the Court of the, Civil Judge was the appellate, Co,urt and appeals against such decrees ought to have been filed before that Court. He pointed qut that this Court has no jurisdiction to exercise its powers under S. 115 of the Code under these circumstances. Sri P. Rangaswamy, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relied very heavily on the order dt. 14-7-1972 passed by this court in CRP No. 950 of 1972. He contended that this order was passed by Datar, J. in regard to similar set of facts and circumstances, and pointed out that by that order Datar, J. had directed the suit to be disposed of by the Munsiff concerned and that showed that this Court had held that the Munsiff had jurisdiction to try the suit. He nextly urged that a similar order is to be passed in the petitions on hand. ( 5 ) THE order passed by Datar, J. in CRP. No. 9 50/72 (2), reads as follows:" At the hearing of this revision petition the learned Advocate for the respondent stated that until the disposal of O. S. No. 461 of 1971 on the file of the II Addl. I Munsiff of Mysore, the Dy. General Manager, Bangalore, crp. 950/72. will withhold further action and will not pass any further order in the matter. In view of this undertaking given to this Court, it is unnecessary to pass any interim order in O. S. 461 of 1971. Haying regard to, the nature of the dispute arising in the same, 1 direct the learned II Add. I Munsiff, mysore, to dispose of O. S. 461/71 on his file not later that the 1st of October 1972. A copy of this order should be sent to the Court below within a, week from this date. " ( 6 ) IT is clear that Datar, J. did not at all enter into the question whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction or not and whether the revision petition was maintainable or not. He simply acted on the submission made by the counsel for the respondent that until O. S. 461 of 1971 was disposed, further action proposed by the Deputy General Manager (Divl. Controller) in the matter of disciplinary enquiry would be withheld. He, acting on such submission, directed the Munsiff to dispose of the suit not later than first of Octr. 1972. Controller) in the matter of disciplinary enquiry would be withheld. He, acting on such submission, directed the Munsiff to dispose of the suit not later than first of Octr. 1972. 1 am, therefore, not inclined to agree with the contention of Sri P. Rangaswamy that by this decision, the High Court ruled that under a similar set oi circumstances the civil revision petition was maintainable and the II Addl. I Munsiff, Mysore had jurisdiction to deal with such matters, and such jurisdiction was not barred by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 7 ) WHATEVER may be the view in regard to jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff in such matters, it is now to be seen whether this Court can exercise its power under S. 115 of the Code. It has already been made clear that these revision petitions are directed Against rejection of plaintiffs in various suits by applying the provisions of Or. 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code. Section 2 (2) of the Code defines 'decree' as fallows : a reading of this definition leaves no doubt in my mind that rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree. So far as the Court of the Munsiff is concerned, the rights of the parties have been conclusively determined by this decree. It, therefore follows that the decrees are appeasable under the provisions of s. 96 of the Code, S. 20 of the Act provides that appeals against the decrees passed by the Munsiffs are to be filed in the Courts of the concerned Civil judges. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners had right of appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge at Hassan. ( 8 ) SRI P. Rangaswamy in this connection urged that even if an appeal lies, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. He placed reliance on the decision in Kedarnath Lal v. Sheonarian Ram ,air. 1952 Pat. 280. This decision does support the contention of Sri P. Rangaswamy. ( 8 ) SRI P. Rangaswamy in this connection urged that even if an appeal lies, this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. He placed reliance on the decision in Kedarnath Lal v. Sheonarian Ram ,air. 1952 Pat. 280. This decision does support the contention of Sri P. Rangaswamy. It lays down that S. 115 of the Code means that the High Court cannot act only in those cases in which an appeal lies to that Court, and the fact that an appeal lies to the lower appellate Court does not take away the High Court's power of revision It may be mentioned here itself that a contrary view has been taken by various other High Courts. But, by now this controversy has been settled by the Supreme Court in S S. Khanna v. F. J. Dillon, AIR. 1964 SC. 497. The Supreme Court has, after considering the decisions rendered by the Privy Council, Allahabad High court and the Rajasthan High Court, fqund as follows : if an appeal lies against the Adjudication directly to the High court, or to another Court from the decision of which an appeal lies to the High Court, it has no power to exercise its revisional, jurisdiction, but where the decision itself is not appealable to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the court would not be deemed excluded. ( 9 ) IT is, hence, clear that if from the decision in question an appeal lies to a subordinate Court and the decision of such subordinate Court is appealable to the high Court, the High Court has no power to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. I have already pointed out that the petitioners had right of appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge under S. 96 of the Code and S. 20 of the Act. It is, therefore, certain that second appeals under s. 100 of the Code would lie to this Court as against the decisions rendered by the Civil Judge. Because of these facts and circumstances and the law being as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 497 (3), it has to be held that this Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. Because of these facts and circumstances and the law being as laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1964 SC 497 (3), it has to be held that this Court cannot exercise its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Code. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that these revision petitions are not maintainable in this Court, and reject them. No order as to costs under the circumstances of the case. --- *** --- .