1. By medium of this Revision petition order dated 1.4.2008, passed by Learned Sub Judge Handwara is put to challenge. By virtue of the order impugned petitioners have been directed to submit the relevant record pertaining to the suit for perusal and for examination, so as to enable the court to decide as to whether the additional issues are required to be framed or not. According to appearing counsel for the petitioners, Learned Sub Judge has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in him and acted with material irregularity. The order impugned is to cause failure of justice. Buttressing the submission learned counsel would contended that when the decree/preliminary/final is passed then there is no occasion for framing of additional issues, in terms of Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC. Further more after passing of the decree powers under Order 14 Rule 4 CPC to compel the production of the document is also not permissible for framing of additional issues. 2. According to the Learned counsel for the respondents no decree has been passed either preliminary or final. If preliminary decree would have been passed, then there would have been a decree sheet on the file. That apart the question of framing of additional issues is yet to be decided, as the Learned trial court only has asked for production of the documents, which earlier were produced and after perusal returned to the petitioners, as is reflected in the order dated 22.11.2004. The Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in support of his contention invited the attention of the court towards the order dated 21.11.2004, 22.12.2004 recorded on the trial court file and also laid much emphasis on the provisions of Order 14 CPC. 3. Heard, considered. For determination of the contentions raised Rule 5 of Order 14 is required to be reproduced: "5. Powers to amend, and strike out, issues. (1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. 4. (2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced. 4. It is implicit from plain reading of the Rule 5 that before passing a decree court can amend issues or frame additional issues and can also strike out any issues as may appear wrongly framed or introduced. The word decree as occur in the rule is defined in the CPC Section 2(2) reads as under: (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;" 5. It is quite implicit that decree means either preliminary or final. Now the question is as to whether preliminary decree has been passed. In this connection precise factual background is required to be noticed. Suit titled Ghulam Hassan Tantray v. General Manager Kamraz Rural Bank and others has been filed seeking decree for settlement of accounts between the plaintiff (respondent) and defendants (petitioners). The plaintiff (respondent) was having transaction with the defendant bank. The plaintiff claimed that nothing is outstanding against him, whereas defendants have shown some amount outstanding against him, which plaintiff has claimed to be false. In the written statement defendants have pleaded that plaintiff has already settled the accounts with the banks, admitted and acknowledged accounts with the bank in writing and agreed to liquidate it within a short period of time. Suit has been filed simply to avoid the recovery process. In the written statement defendants have pleaded that plaintiff has already settled the accounts with the banks, admitted and acknowledged accounts with the bank in writing and agreed to liquidate it within a short period of time. Suit has been filed simply to avoid the recovery process. On the basis of respective pleadings Learned trial court vide its order dated 26.6.2000 has framed the following three issues: i) Whether the defendants are liable to render accounts to the plaintiff; OPP ii) Whether the suit of the plaintiff in the present form is maintainable; OPD iii) Relief. 6. The issue No.2 has been treated and decided as preliminary issue, which has been decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, as such suit has been held maintainable vide detailed order dated 28.11.2002. Thereafter arguments have been heard viz-a-viz the remaining issues. Learned trial court vide order dated 21.4.2003 has passed preliminary decree. Learned trial court has opined that suit for rendition of accounts lies where it is necessary to ascertain the amount of debt to or from any party. Where the suit is for ascertaining the sum of money on the basis of settled accounts, court, has to examine the material, if necessary and pass a decree in accordance with the law as ordained by Order 20 Rule 16 & 17 of CPC. Noticing the said position Learned trial court has passed the preliminary decree. The operative part of the order reads as under: "In view of the above reasons it is necessary to pass preliminary decree and refer the matter to the Commissioner before passing the final decree. Accordingly, preliminary decree is passed and Mr. Bashir Ahmad Sheikh is appointed as Commissioner and is directed to settle the accounts after hearing both the parties and the parties shall furnish all the required information to the said commissioner who shall file his report before this court within 20 days from today. His fee is fixed at Rs. 2000/- which shall be paid by the parties equally. Commissioners fee shall be deposited in this court within seven days from today. The file shall come up for further proceedings on 15.5.2003. Sd/-Judge" 7. His fee is fixed at Rs. 2000/- which shall be paid by the parties equally. Commissioners fee shall be deposited in this court within seven days from today. The file shall come up for further proceedings on 15.5.2003. Sd/-Judge" 7. The appointed Commissioner in compliance has submitted his detailed report on 19.5.2003, as is also reflected by the trial court in its order dated 29.5.2003, Then in the order dated 14.6.2003 it is recorded that the plaintiff has no objection against the report. Again in the interim order recorded on 21.7.2004, Learned trial court has recorded that regarding the report, there is no objection, so the same is treated as final and has further recorded that on perusal of the original record final orders shall be passed. The said record is shown to have been produced by the Manager of the bank on 22.12.2004, which has been compared with the record appended with the file and case posted for final argument, as is reflected in the order dated 22.12.2004. Case as such had been taken on 28.12.2004 but the counsel appearing for the plaintiff therein had stated, that he has no instructions based on which trial court has dismissed the suit as not pressed vide order dated 28.12.2004. The said order has been challenged by medium of Civil Revision No. 31/05 by the defendants bank. The said Revision petition has been decided by this court on 3.5.2006, whereunder impugned order of dismissal dated 28.12.2004 has been set-aside and case remanded back to the trial court, with direction to proceed ahead in the matter in accordance with the law. It has been observed that the court had no power to dismiss the suit as not pressed, once the preliminary decree is passed and the Commissioner submits its report. 8. Subsequent to the orders passed in the Revision, plaintiff has filed application before trial court for framing some additional issues, same has been resisted by the defendant bank. Learned trial court while considering the said application for striking out additional issues has passed the order impugned. The contention of the Learned counsel for the respondents that in terms of Order 14 Rule 3, the court has to frame issues on the material which include contents of the documents produced by either party. Learned trial court while considering the said application for striking out additional issues has passed the order impugned. The contention of the Learned counsel for the respondents that in terms of Order 14 Rule 3, the court has to frame issues on the material which include contents of the documents produced by either party. According to Learned counsel, Learned trial court has asked for the production of the documents, which in fact have been produced by the defendant bank on 22.12.2004, therefore, there is nothing wrong in the order. This contention is to be repelled, because if the learned trial court would have asked for production of the said documents for final disposal of the case, position could be some what different. Production of said documents has been ordered simply for determining as to whether additional issues can be framed and it is for that purpose contents of the documents are required to be perused. The power under Order 14 Rule 4 is exercisable at its relevant stage i.e. the stage when issues are framed, in terms of Rule 1 of Order 14. Further more in terms of Rule 5 again resort can be had to Rule 4 but not after the decree (preliminary or final) is passed. 9. Admittedly in terms of order dated 21.4.2003 recorded by Learned Sub Judge, only the final decree is to be passed after hearing both the parties. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position, Learned Sub Judge while passing impugned order has acted with material irregularity and has exercised jurisdiction not vested in him. There is no question of striking out additional issues, when the preliminary decree has been passed. When it is so, summoning of the record in terms of Order 14 Rule 4 read with Rule 3 (C) is unwarranted. It is made clear that for striking out additional issues or for amendment of the issues production of the record cannot be compelled, as the application for striking out additional issues is not maintainable in view of the preliminary decree having been passed. The contention of the Learned counsel for the respondents that preliminary decree shown to have been passed in terms of order dated 21.4.2003 in essence is not decree, but this contention is devoid of force. As subsequent to the order dated 21.4.2003 Commissioner appointed, has submitted report. The contention of the Learned counsel for the respondents that preliminary decree shown to have been passed in terms of order dated 21.4.2003 in essence is not decree, but this contention is devoid of force. As subsequent to the order dated 21.4.2003 Commissioner appointed, has submitted report. The said report has not been objected by the parties, neither the order dated 21.4.2003 has been challenged, so is not open to question. Non framing of the formal preliminary decree sheet is an administrative function, which cannot render the order dated 21.4.2003 in-effective. Even if the decree is not framed the last para of the Judgment is to be treated as decree. 11. For final disposal of the main suit original record shown to have been produced on 22.12.2004, can again be called for perusal, but not for the purposes of striking out the additional issues or for the amendment of the issues. 12. For the reasons stated above, petition succeeds. Order impugned dated 1.4.2008 is unsustainable, so is set aside. Learned trial court shall dispose of the main suit finally. Appearance before the trial court is fixed on 28.2.2009. Copy of the order alongwith trial court record be sent back forthwith.