JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal relates to a suit for rendition of accounts filed in 1973 and not proceeded further since 1975, as a result of present proceedings arising out of rejection of plaint by the trial court for want of payment of court fee, which has been set aside by the learned single Judge vide order under appeal. 3. The principle question raised in this appeal is that where an order of rejection of a plaint is passed under s.11 [2] of the Rajasthan Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1961 amounts to a decree within the meaning of s.2[2] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as the order passed under O.VII,r.11 CPC can be termed a decree within that provision. The ancillary issue is that if it amounts to a decree under s.2[2] CPC, an appeal which has been filed without filing certified copy of the decree is incompetent or the case falls in the exceptional circumstances in which the appeal against the decree though filed without certified copy of the decree can be constituted as competent as per the ratio laid by the Supreme Court in Phoolchand v. Gopallal [ AIR 1967 SC 1470 ] . 4. Alternatively, if it does not amount to a decree, the regular first appeal filed by the respondent before this Court is maintainable and the litigation which is pending in the court of Addl. District Judge, Hanumangarh shall not come to an end. If it is held that the appeal was incompetent, as a rejection of the plaint under order 7, r.1 1 CPC, it would not preclude the plaintiff-respondent from filing a fresh suit on the same cause of action again for which prima facie he shall be entitled to exclude all the period during which appeal or special appeal was litigated. That will also not set at rest the lis. 5. It will be apposite to notice that the appeal filed against the order of the learned trial Judge rejecting the plaint with reference to section 11 [2] of the Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1961 has been set aside by the learned Single Judge by treating the appeal to be competent. The defendant-appellant has filed this appeal for non-suiting the plaintiff. 6. The defendant-appellant has filed this appeal for non-suiting the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that as per directions of High Court as per order under appeal, the the plaintiff has paid the court fee. On the score of proper valuation for payment of court fee, no interest of the appellant survives, as that is strictly matter between the plaintiff and the State. The defendants cannot be aggrieved of order relating to proper court fee. So far as relevance of proper valuation of the suit, for the purposes of jurisdiction is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that whether order of trial court survives or that of High Court, it does not affect that question also inasmuch the suit for rendition of accounts has been filed in District Court, which has peculiar jurisdiction of unlimited amount and is not affected by the decision. 7. In these circumstances when we made a query from the learned counsel for the appellant that for what end this litigation has been prolonged on a technical plea? It was stated by the learned counsel that since his defence against the plaintiff's suit has been struck off because of non-production of certain documents, he is already excluded from proceeding with the present suit and it is a fargone conclusion that a decree will be passed against him ex parte but if he succeeds in the suit, and a fresh suit is filed, he will be able to contest the suit on merits. It is further informed that revision filed by the present appellant against the order striking out defence has been earlier dismissed. 8. With the aforesaid background, he further stated that if he is allowed to proceed in the present suit by setting aside the ex pane order passed against him and striking out his defence, he is willing to withdraw this special appeal. 9. To this suggestion, which appears to us to be fair and just, the learned counsel for the respondent has also agreed to. 10. Accordingly, we permit the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw this appeal and direct the learned trial court to permit the defendant appellant to participate in the suit by setting aside the order of rejection and striking out of his defence and to proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with the law. 10. Accordingly, we permit the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw this appeal and direct the learned trial court to permit the defendant appellant to participate in the suit by setting aside the order of rejection and striking out of his defence and to proceed with the suit expeditiously in accordance with the law. The record of the case, which is lying in this court since 1998 may be transmitted to the learned trial court forthwith. 11. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, It is further directed that parties shall appear before the learned District Judge Hanumangarh on 15.4.2002 about which the learned counsel for the parties shall intimate the respective parties, they represent. 12. Accordingly, with agreement of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn subject to aforesaid directions. Costs to be easy.Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. *******