JUDGMENT Giridhar Gopal, Member - This revision has been filed by Hazrat Ullah against Shafiq challenging the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner (Judl.) Faizabad Division, dated April 19, 1986 deciding that the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant should be heard on merit and rejecting the preliminary objection of the defendant-respondent about the non-maintainability of the appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff had filed a suit before the trial court under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which the trial court with a detailed impugned order dated January 15, 1983 decided that it was not proper to proceed with the suit and had ordered that the file be consigned to record. Against this order of the trial court plaintiff-appellant filed an appeal before the learned Addl. Commissioner before whom a preliminary objection was raised by the defendant-respondent that since along with the memo of appeal copy of decree was not filed so the appeal was defective. The learned Addl. Commissioner by the impugned order dated April 19, 1986 referred to above had decided to hear the appeal on merit. The present revision before me is against the above order of the learned Addl. Commissioner dated April 19, 1986. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The learned counsel for the revisionist referred to Order 41, Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and argued that the above rule makes mandatory provision that the judgment must be accompanied with a copy of the decree (unless the appellate court dispenses therewith) and without a copy of the decree the appeal was incompetent before the learned Addl. Commissioner. He also referred to Order 20, Rule 6-A(2) in support of his contention that if copy of the decree was not filed a certificate to that affect was necessary from the court concerned. The learned counsel for the O.P. referred to Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. which dealt with the rejection of the plaint and argued that in this case the trial court has rather rejected the plaint as such and has not dismissed or decreed the suit, hence there was no question of preparation of decree and as such in view of Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. the appeal filed before the learned Addl. Commissioner was fully competent because the impugned order of the trial court amounted to rejection of the plaint itself and operative para of the judgment shall be deemed to be a decree and as such the Addl. Commissioner had rightly passed the impugned order, though on different grounds. 4. After giving due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties I agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the O.P. that it was a case of rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. A.I.R. 1934 Calcutta page 623 (624) says that 'an order of rejection of a plaint is a decree as defined in Section 2 of the Code'. A distinction is to be drawn between the cases of non-preparation of a decree and delayed preparation of a decree. Order 20, Rule 6-A applies to the delayed preparation of a decree and this is a case of non-preparation of decree covered by Order 7, Rule 11 read with Section 2(2) of the C.P.C. In the light of the above observations. I am of the view that the learned Addl. Commissioner has rightly contended that the appeal before him deserved to be heard on merit and decided accordingly than merely rejecting it on purely technical ground. Accordingly, I dismiss the revision and uphold the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated April 19, 1986.