JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a Civil Revision filed u/s 115 Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The revisionist Gorakh Nath Upadhaya filed a suit No. 48 of 1979 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ballia, against opposite party Nos. 2 to 17, for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution. Shri Saibal Kumar Mukerjee, opposite party No. 2. was the then District Magistrate of Ballia. This revision is being contested on his behalf alone. 3. During the pungency of the suit, Issue Nos. 15 and 17 were decided as preliminary issues by order dated 17th November, 1983, by the Civil Judge, Ballia. Issue Nos. 15 and 17 were to the effect as to whether the suit is liable to be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as against opposite party No. 2 and as to whether the opposite party No. 2 is liable to be discharged, as no cause of action has been shown to exist against him. 4. The Civil Judge, Ballia, by his order dated 17th November, 1983, decided both the issues in favour of opposite party No. 2. It was held that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action against opposite party No. 2 and, consequently, the suit was dismissed as against the opposite party No. 2 Under Order 7 Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. It was further held that since no cause of action was disclosed against the opposite party No. 2, the opposite party No. 2 is liable to be discharged as. a party in the said suit. The order dated 17th November, 1983, has been challenged by means of the present revision in this Court by the Plaintiff revisionist. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party No. 2, Shri Saibat Kumar Mukherjee. 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended, firstly, that the Civil Judge has acted wholly without jurisdiction in deciding issues Nos. 15 and 17 as preliminary issues. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party No. 2, Shri Saibat Kumar Mukherjee. 6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended, firstly, that the Civil Judge has acted wholly without jurisdiction in deciding issues Nos. 15 and 17 as preliminary issues. Secondly, it has been argued that, in any case, on merits, the view taken by the court below, that no cause of action is disclosed against the oppose Order 7 Rule 11, CPC the Court could reject the entire plaint and not reject the plaint, in part, only against one Defendant and, lastly, it has been submitted that sufficient particulars were available in the plaint and the court below has erred, in law, in holding that the particulars, as required Under Order 6 Rule 4, CPC are lacking. 7. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2, has, however, raised a preliminary objection that a revision is not maintainable against the order dated 17th November, 1983, and, as such, the question of considering the validity of the order on merits does not arise at all. 8. I will first consider the preliminary -objection raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 9. In the operative portion of the order dated 17th November, 1983, which has been challenged in the present revision, it has been directed that the plaint would be rejected Under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC as against opposite party No. 2 for having disclosed no cause of action. 10. Order 7 Rule 11, CPC empowers the Court to reject a plaint where it does not disclose a cause of action. Section 2(2), CPC defines a decree as Under: 2 (2). "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in -controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include : (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or any order of dismissal for default. 11. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within Section 144, but shall not include : (a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or any order of dismissal for default. 11. It is clear from the above mentioned definition of the word "decree" that it includes the rejection of a plaint. In view of the specific provision, an order rejecting a plaint clearly amounts to a decree. If it amounts to a decree an appeal lies against the order dated 17th November, 1983. 12. In Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 it has been held as under: In the present case the plaint was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC Such an order amounts to a decree u/s 2(2) and there is a right of appeal open to the Plaintiff. The decision in the case of Shamsher Singh Vs. Rajinder Prashad and Others, AIR 1973 SC 2384 fully applies in the present case. In the circumstances, it is clear that against the order dated 17th November, 1983, an appeal lies. 13. In Major S.S. Khanna Vs. Brig. F.J. Dillon, AIR 1964 SC 497 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of Section 115, CPC It opined as under: it 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 provisional jurisdiction, but where the decision itself is not appeal able to the High Court directly or indirectly, exercise of the provisional jurisdiction by the High Court would not be deemed excluded. The Supreme Court, consequently has held that where an appeal lies to the High Court, the High Court has no power to exercise its provisional jurisdiction. In the instant case, the valuation of the suit is Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the circumstances, au appeal clearly lies to the High Court. If an appeal clearly lies to the High Court, the High Court, as held above, has no power to exercise its provisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that against the impugned order, an appeal lies and, as such, the present revision is not maintainable in law. 14. If an appeal clearly lies to the High Court, the High Court, as held above, has no power to exercise its provisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that against the impugned order, an appeal lies and, as such, the present revision is not maintainable in law. 14. There is another aspect of the matter. By the impugned order, the name of the opposite party No. 2 has been struck off by the trial court on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action against the opposite party No. 2 and the suit has been dismissed as against him. The order in effect determines the right of the Plaintiff to bring a suit against the opposite party No. 2. This clearly amounts to a decree and, as such, is also appeal able. 15. In Shair Ali Vs. Jagmohan Ram and Another a Division Bench of this Court, after examining the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2), CPC has held as under: Order 1, R. 10, CI. (2), CPC provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceeding order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as Plaintiff or Defendant are struck out. An order striking out the name of a party is not necessarily a decree. Where the Plaintiff had imp leaded a person, merely upon the ground of convenience and the plaint discloses no cause of action against him and the Plaintiff has claimed no relief against him, the order of the Court directing the removal of the name of such a Defendant does not operate as a decree, for it has not the effect of an adjudicate, and the integrity of the original claim remains unbroken. Where however a cause of action against a Defendant has been specifically pleaded and a distinct relief has been claimed against him the order directing the removal of his name from the array of parties is in substance although not in form, a decree because the effect of the order is the refusal to grant the relief to the Plaintiff which he had prayed for against him. Defendant 2 was not impleaded only for the sake of convenience. The Plaintiff had sued him because of an alleged cause of action against him and the Plaintiff had prayed for a decree against him for Rs. 1,000/- as damages. Defendant 2 was not impleaded only for the sake of convenience. The Plaintiff had sued him because of an alleged cause of action against him and the Plaintiff had prayed for a decree against him for Rs. 1,000/- as damages. The effect of the order passed by the Munsif is the virtual dismissal of the suit against him and the latter has been awarded his costs from the Plaintiff. We are clearly of opinion that the order sought to be revised was in substance a decree and was open to appeal as such. " 16. The principle laid down by the Division Bench fully applies to the present case. In this view of the matter also, the impugned order dated 17th j November, 1983, amounts to a decree and, as such, an appeal would liven against I the said order and the revision would not be maintainable. Since I am of the view that an appeal lies and a revision is not maintainable it is not necessary for me to go into the merits of the submissions raised by the learned Counsel. 17. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed as not maintainable. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.