Short Note : The plaintiff-applicant's suit was dismissed on 22nd March 1974 on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. The plea of res judicata was taken by the defendants. The Plaintiff then applied for preparation of decree. This application was rejected on 14th October 1974. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. Held : The only question that arises in this revision is whether the trial Court should have drawn up a decree as applied for by the plaintiff-applicant. It may here be mentioned that the trial Court has drawn up a memorandum of costs but no decree has been prepared. 2. Section 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure says that the Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment, and on such judgment a decree shall follow. The bar of res judicata did not appear from the plaint allegations. The bar was pleaded by the defendants. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaint could be rejected under Order 7 rule 11(d) of the Code. Indeed, the trial Court specifically said that the suit was being dismissed with costs. Rule 177 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Courts Rules, is also relevant. 3. As the plaint was not rejected and the suit was dismissed, the trial Court was bound to draw up a decree in accordance with the judgment. In refusing to draw the decree, the Court below has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it by law. Revision allowed.