JUDGMENT Ruma Pal, J,: The appellant is the defendant no.3 in a suit filed by the respondent no. 1. The suit filed by the respondent No.1 involves immovable property at Alipore (referred to as the suit property) admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. It is claimed in the plaint that the suit property along with other properties was the subject matter of a deed of trust dated 8th March 1951 created by one Amarendra Nath (referred to as the Settlor). The Settlor’s son Sailendra Nath was the sole trustee. The beneficiaries of the trust are the two sons of Sailendra Nath namely, Subir and Goutam, the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff respectively, in the suit. Sailendra Nath died on 23rd November 1990. According to the plaintiff he subsequently came to know that Sailendra Nath had in abuse of his powers as a trustee illegally transferred the plaintiffs share in the suit property to the defendant no.2 by deed of gift dated 18th June 1971 when the plaintiff was a minor and behind the plaintiffs back. It is the further case in the plaint, that a suit was filed by the defendant No.1 who is a major shareholder of the defendant No.3 against the defendant No.2, in this High Court being Suit No.42 of 1980. According to the plaintiff a collusive decree was passed in the suit on 22nd May 1980 pursuant to which the defendant No.2 sold the entire suit property to the defendant No.3 at a gross under value. A deed of conveyance was executed on 14th February 1981 by the defendant No.2 transferring the suit property to the defendant No.3. On 6th December 1992 the plaintiff filed a suit before the Assistant District Judge at Alipore within the jurisdiction of which the suit property is situated, challenging the deed of gift dated 18.6.71 in favour of the defendant No.2 as well as the conveyance dated 14.2.81 in favour of the defendant No.3 and claiming the right to possession of the suit property under the trust. In 1996 an application was made in Title Suit No.77 of 1992 by the defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. In 1996 an application was made in Title Suit No.77 of 1992 by the defendant No.3 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permitting the suit to be withdrawn for presentation to the Calcutta High Court. The plaintiffs application was allowed on contest by an order dated 16th April 1996. 3. The plaintiff filed this suit in May 1996 in the High Court on the same cause of action as the Alipore Suit. In paragraph 16 of the plaint it has been stated that since the validity of an order and the decree passed by the High Court in Suit No.42 of 1980 had been called in question, by virtue of the Decree and Order Validation Act, 1936, the High Court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was filed with leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 4. The defendant No.3 in the suit, which is the appellant herein, then filed an application before this Court for inter alia the following reliefs : “(a) The plaint filed in the above suit being Suit No. 129C of 1996 (Gautam Ray vs. Debendra Bajoria & Ors.) be rejected and/or be taken off the file and/or the suit be dismissed with costs; (b) In the alternative, the leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent be revoked;”. 5. It was claimed in the appellant's petition that the suit was a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and since the land is admittedly outside the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court did not have the jurisdiction to receive, try or determine the suit, it was further stated that suit was barred by limitation because the suit was filed on 30th September 1992 whereas the present suit was filed on 23rd May 1996. The Learned Single Judge did not decide the issue and after recording the submissions of the parties disposed of the application of the defendant No.3 by stating: “After considering all the facts, and principles taken into account, I am of the opinion that it should be presumed the statements made in the plaint are true and correct at this stage. The Learned Single Judge did not decide the issue and after recording the submissions of the parties disposed of the application of the defendant No.3 by stating: “After considering all the facts, and principles taken into account, I am of the opinion that it should be presumed the statements made in the plaint are true and correct at this stage. I am also of the opinion that such point may be taken by the petitioner as a preliminary point at the time of hearing of the suit. In that view, no further order need be passed on this application.” 6. The appellant has appealed from this order claiming that the Court did not deal with the question of lack of territorial jurisdiction and only directed that the point of limitation may be taken as a preliminary point at the time of the hearing of the suit. 7. A preliminary objection was taken by the plaintiff respondent as to the maintainability of the appeal. In our view, the preliminary objection must succeed on the simple ground that there is no final decision of the learned Single Judge on the application of the appellant at all. It may be that in recording the submissions of the appellant, the Learned Judge only noted the argument with regard to the plea of limitation. However, the Learned Judge had noted the scope of the application in the order and his decision that the objection of the appellant in its application should be heard as a preliminary issue relates to the entire application. The Learned Judge has not rejected any portion of the appellant's application whether on the point of limitation or jurisdiction either expressly or impliedly. The Learned Judge has not rejected any portion of the appellant's application whether on the point of limitation or jurisdiction either expressly or impliedly. It may be noted that under Order 14 Rule 2 sub-rule (2) of the Code: “2(2) Where issues both of law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on an issue of law only, it may try that issue first if that issue relates to- (a) the jurisdiction of the Court, or (b) a bar to the suit created by any law for the time being in force, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the other issues until after that issue has been determined, and may deal with the suit in accordance with the decision on that issue.” 8. The decisions cited by the appellant in support of its submission that the appeal was maintainable are inapposite. In each of the cases so cited namely, Shorab Modi vs. Mansata Film Distributors Ltd. : AIR 1957 Cal 727 ; Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. : AIR 1981 SC 1786 and Central Bank Ltd. vs. Shree Bhagawati Hosiery Mills Ltd.: 70 CWN 670 all deal with situations where a final order was passed either accepting or rejecting a particular plea. 9. In Modi vs. Mansata (supra) a suit was filed by Modi against Mansata in the Bombay High Court and another suit was filed by Mansata against Modi in the Calcutta High Court. Mansata made an application before the Calcutta High Court for restraining Modi from proceeding with the Bombay suit. Modi also made an application before the Calcutta High Court for revocation of leave under clause 12 of the Letters Patent and alternatively for stay of the Calcutta suit under section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both applications were dismissed by the Learned Single Judge. Modi preferred an appeal from the order of dismissal. It was in that context that the Division Bench held that the decision was an appellable one. 10. Similarly in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. (supra) there was an order of the Trial Judge refusing to appoint a receiver or grant any injunction on the merits. Modi preferred an appeal from the order of dismissal. It was in that context that the Division Bench held that the decision was an appellable one. 10. Similarly in Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben D. Kania and Anr. (supra) there was an order of the Trial Judge refusing to appoint a receiver or grant any injunction on the merits. The Supreme Court held that even if an order was not appellable under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure it could be appellable as a judgement under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It was said "whenever a Trial Judge decides a controvery which affects valuable rights of one of the parties, it must be treated to be a judgement within the meaning of the Letter Patent”. In this case the Learned Trial Judge has not decided any issue at all but has directed the matter to be heard as a preliminary objection. 11. Finally, in the decision in Central Bank vs. S. B. Hosiery (supra), the Bank had filed a suit against S.B. Hosiery in Bhagalpur. The suit was decreed in favour of the Bank. An appeal was preferred before the Patna High Court. In the meanwhile S.B. Hosiery filed a suit against the Bank in the Calcutta High Court. The Bank made an application for amendment of its written statement in the Calcutta suit by including a prayer of res judicata and for postponement of the Calcutta High Court suit till the disposal of the appeal pending in the Patna High Court. The application was dismissed. In other words, there was a final decision on the plea of res judicata. The appeal preferred from the order of dismissal was accordingly entertained. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff respondent has, on his part, sought to contend that in a later decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Prahladrai Agarwalla vs. Sm. Renukd Pal and Ors.: AIR 1982 Cal 259 it had been categorically held that an order refusing to reject a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 was not a judgement under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and therefore not appellable. There appears to be an apparent conflict between the decision in Prahladri Agarwalla vs. Renuka Pal: AIR 1982 Cal 259 and Modi vs. Mansata (supra). There appears to be an apparent conflict between the decision in Prahladri Agarwalla vs. Renuka Pal: AIR 1982 Cal 259 and Modi vs. Mansata (supra). However we are not called upon to resolve the difference in this case as we hold that the order dated 16th July 1998 did not finally decide either of the issue raised by the appellant on the maintainability of the suit but has only deferred the decision for being dealt with under Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code. 13. For the reasons aforesaid we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. Costs of this appeal will be costs in the suit. Basudev Panigrahi, J.: I agree. Let a xerox copy of the judgement duly signed by the Assistant Registrar of this Court be given to the parties upon their undertaking to apply for and obtain certified copy of the judgement and on payment of usual charges. Appeal dismissed