Judgment :- Sankarasubban, J. This C.M. Appeal has not been numbered, as according to the Registry, the appeal is not maintainable. Since the appellant insisted that the appeal is maintainable, the matter was referred to us. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared before the learned single Judge. 2. The appellant herein filed the suit for getting a share of the property from the partners in the management of the school. The persons who are entitled to get share were impleaded in the suit. Education Department was also impleaded. The trial court passed a preliminary decree recognizing the right of the appellant. The appellant has filed an application for final decree, which is pending. An appeal was filed against the preliminary decree as A.S. No. 384 of 1998, which is pending before a learned single Judge and there was an order of stay by the learned single Judge staying the passing of the final decree. According to the appellant, a Commissioner has benn appointed and the Commissioner filed a report in the final decree proceedings. Respondent 1 to 3 in the appeal then filed a petition for impleading them in the appeal. That application was allowed. Thereafter, the persons impleaded filed C.M.P. No. 4046 of 2001 for transposing them as appellants as according to them, the original appellant has filed a suit claiming the same benefits as the present appellant in the C.M.A. has sought and hence, according to respondents 1 to 3 the appeal will not be prosecuted by the appellant. Hence, they prayed for transposing them as appellants. This was objected to by the present appellant. Learned single Judge, by order dated 27.11.2001 allowed C.M.P. No. 4046 of 2001 holding that since the appellant has filed a fresh suit, the apprehension that the appellant has practically abandoned the appeal seems to be correct. It is this order that is sought to be challenged in this appeal. 3. The appellant has invoked Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Section 5(ii) of the Act is as follows : 4. "Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge :- An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from - (i) …………………………. 3. The appellant has invoked Section 5(ii) of the Kerala High Court Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Section 5(ii) of the Act is as follows : 4. "Appeal from judgment or order of Single Judge :- An appeal shall lie to a Bench of two Judges from - (i) …………………………. (ii) a judgment of a single Judge in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree made in the exercise of original jurisdiction by a subordinate court". A reading of Section 5(ii) of the Act shows that it provides for an appeal against the judgment made in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Admittedly, the appeal is filed against C.M.P. No. 4046 of 2001. Hence, there is no final judgment so far as the present appeal is concerned. The present order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be a judgment, as it has not finally disposed of the appeal. True, Section 5(i) of the Act says that an appeal shall lie from an interim order of a learned single Judge in the exercise of original jurisdiction. The word used is 'order' and not 'judgment' the word used in Section 5 (ii) of the Act is 'judgment'. It is not necessary for us to point out that there is a well accepted distinction between the judgment and order. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant brought to our notice certain decisions. One is State of Kerala v. Annam Alias Thankamma - 1968 K.L.T. 390 that the judgment should determine the main point in the case and should be appealable. Hence, there is no relevancy so far as the present case is concerned. The decision in Venugopalan v. Malappuram Dist. Co-Operative M.S. Union Ltd. - 1995 (2) K.L.T. 200 is also not applicable in this case. That was a case where the Full Bench held that for an appeal under Section 5(ii) of the Act it is not necessary for the court to raise substantive question of law. Another decision cited before us is the decision in St. John's Jacobite Syrian church v. Fr. John - 2001 (2) K.L.T. 621. In that case, the Division Bench was considering whether the appeal will lie against the orders passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Another decision cited before us is the decision in St. John's Jacobite Syrian church v. Fr. John - 2001 (2) K.L.T. 621. In that case, the Division Bench was considering whether the appeal will lie against the orders passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The court held that the word 'judgment' used in Section 5(ii) of the Act is distinct from an order and an appeal does not lie from the impugned order to a Full Bench of this Court. Of course, if the appellant is aggrieved, the present order can be challenged along with the main appeal. Hence, we hold that the appeal is not maintainable. Appeal is dismissed.