In this application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter “C. P. C." the petitioner challenges the order dated 20. 1. 81 passed by the learned Munsiff, Mangaldoi in Money Suit No. 32 of 1976. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. P. C. Kataki. the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the revision app­lication is not maintainable inasmuch as the order, which is the subject matter of the present petition, is a decree appealable under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, as such, no revision lies against the same in view of the specific provision to that effect contained in section 115 C. P. C. Before dealing with the objection, the facts of the case may be stated in brief. The petitioner filed a suit in the Court of Munsiff, Mangaldoi for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4771.87 from the defendant Nos. 1 an1 2, who were a Co-operative Society and the Secretary thereof, respectively. Before the trial Court a preliminary objection was raised by the defendants that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in section 63 of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 1949 which required the dispute of the nature, which was the subject matter of the suit, to be referred to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies for his decision. The Court framed issue, examined witnesses and held that the dispute was covered by, section 63 of the Act and, the same should have been referred to the Registrar and, as such, the suit was not maintainable. As the suit was dismissed on that ground, the Court did not decide other issues. A decree was passed accordingly. The question for determination now is whether the dimissal of the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable, amounts to a decree or not. If it is held to be a decree, it is appealable and revision will not lie. Heard Mr. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. C. Kataki, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. If it is held to be a decree, it is appealable and revision will not lie. Heard Mr. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. C. Kataki, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code defines the expression 'decree' as follows :- “(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 (b) any order of dismissal for default. Explanation-A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be .completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final." From a reading of the aforesaid definition, it is clear that in order to term a particular order a decree three essential conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, it must be given in a suit. Secondly, the suit must start with a, plaint and culminate in a decree. Thirdly, the adjudication must conclusively determine the right of the parties with regards to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit. The expression *'matters in controversy in the suit is important. The question is whether the dispute regarding maintainability of the suit can be said to be a matter in controversy in the suit. In my opinion, it is so. Holding otherwise would amount to reading the expression "matters in controversy in the suit as "the subject matter of the suit”. By holding that the suit is not maintainable, the Court has conclusively determined one of the rights of the .parties in the suit and such an adjudication resulted in dismissal of the suit. It thus amounts to formal expression of adjudication "conclusively determining the right of the parties* in the suit and is a decree within the meaning of the expression as defined in sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. It thus amounts to formal expression of adjudication "conclusively determining the right of the parties* in the suit and is a decree within the meaning of the expression as defined in sub-section (2) of section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the instant case, the Court held that the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit and passed a decree accordingly. In view of the legal position stated above, I hold that the im­pugned order was appealable and, as such, the present revision petition does not lie. In view of the aforesaid decision regarding maintainability of the revision petition, it is neither necessary nor proper to make any observation regarding other question of law as to whether section 63 of the Co-operative Societies Act is a bar to the filing of the suit or not. That can be decided in an appeal, if filed, against the said order. This petition is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.