JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.1989 in Civil Suit No. 2-N/1988 by the learned District Judge, Jhabua, who was pleased to dismiss the suit mainly on two grounds. One that no suit can be· filed and the appellants could have exhausted remedy under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'), since the appellant had already raised his objections and objection application has been disposed of, he can prefer an appeal or revision, whichever is available, and not by way of a separate suit. Secondly suit was dismissed as no cause of action was made out in the plaint. The learned counsel argued that the trial Court has erred on both counts. Firstly he argued that provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code themselves provide that an appeal against an order passed under that Rule is available only if the same is decided on merits one way or other, whereas in the other cases Sub-Rule 5 of Rule 58 would be applicable where filing of the suit is provided for. He argued that in this case, the objections were rejected on the ground of limitation and not on merits. The same cannot be appealed against under Sub-rule 4. In such circumstances, he said the suit remedy is open and is the only remedy available to the appellant. The argument of the learned counsel has a force reading the provisions as they are : (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (1), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive. A plain reading of sub-rule 4 provides an appeal where the claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule. In this case admittedly the claim or objection has not been adjudicated upon, therefore an appeal would not lie. A plain reading of sub-rule 4 provides an appeal where the claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule. In this case admittedly the claim or objection has not been adjudicated upon, therefore an appeal would not lie. The case squarely covered under sub-rule 5 for the reason that the Executing Court has not entertained the objection on a technical ground of limitation for which sub-rule 4 does not provide an appeal. In that case the suit remedy open in sub-rule 5 is the only available remedy, therefore, the suit cannot be rejected on that ground. The argument of Shri Saxena depends on the reading of the plaint. In para-8 of the plaint clearly the plaintiff has stated whether the cause of action ultimately succeeds or not is for the Court to decide after taking evidence or dealing with the case according to law but the plaintiff cannot be non-suited without reading the averments. In this case definitely para 8 of the plaint shows the cause of action. In such circumstances the order of the lower Court cannot stand and is hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court to deal with under its original number as expeditiously as possible since the matter is very old. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. The parties may appear before the trial Court on 18th September, 1998. Record of the lower Court be sent back forthwith.