Judgment : Per Sri MSR, J This appeal is filed against the docket order dated 20-12-2004 in OS SR No.5894 of 2004 of the District Judge, Warangal. 2. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. She instituted the said suit for partition of the plaint schedule property claiming 1/6th share in it and also for future mesne profits and costs. In the said suit she claimed to be the adopted daughter of the defendants/respondents 1 and 2 and alleged that her adoption was accepted in the judgment dated 25-10-1982 in O.S.No.573 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Suryapet. She further alleged that her marriage took place on 9-5-1990 and she is a coparcener of Joint Hindu family consisting of herself and the defendants 1 to 6 by virtue of Section 29 (A) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (AP Amendment Act 13 of 1986) . She contended that she is in joint possession of the plaint schedule property which belongs to the joint family and that she is entitled to the 1/6th share in the plaint schedule property. 3. The trial Court did not number the suit and at SR stage returned the plaint by order dated 20-12-2004 in OS SR No.5894 of 2004. The said order is challenged in this appeal. 4. The trial Court held that only a daughter by birth would become a coparcener in view of the language contained in Section 29 (A) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and as the appellant/plaintiff is claiming to be an adopted daughter, she cannot become a coparcener. It also held that section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 cannot help the appellant/plaintiff. 5. Heard Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent 1 and 2, and Sri Bhuma Goud, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6. 6. Sri Bhuma Goud, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 contended that since the plaint was not numbered as a suit, and it was returned by the trial Court, the present appeal under Section 96 CPC is not maintainable and that the plaintiff/appellant should have filed a revision under Section 115 CPC challenging the order of the trial Court. He cited the decisions reported in A.A. LORDS SHOES PVT. LTD. He cited the decisions reported in A.A. LORDS SHOES PVT. LTD. CO., SECUNDERABAD v MANECK H. GHADIALI 2008 (4) ALD 391 , KOTAPATI RAMALAKSHMI @ RADHIKA v. DONEPARTHI HYMAVATHI 2009 (4) ALD 655 , and MOLUGU RAM REDDY AND OTHERS v. MOLUGU VITTAL REDDY 2011 (5) ALD 522 (FB), in support of his contention. 7. We have perused all the above three decisions. In A.A. LORDS SHOES PVT. LTD. CO., SECUNDERABAD’ case (1 supra), the plaints in three suits were rejected on the ground of limitation and the said orders had been challenged by way of CRPs and CMAs and this Court held that an order returning the plaint has to be challenged by way of Revision under Section 115 CPC and an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 has to be challenged by way of appeal under section 96 of CPC. This Court also held that the Civil Revision Petitions are not maintainable as the plaint was rejected and that Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are also not maintainable as orders passed under Order 7 Rule 11 are made appealable under Order 43 CPC read with Section 104 CPC. The Court permitted the petitioners therein to convert Civil Miscellaneous Appeals into regular appeals and it then decided the controversy. At paras 15 and 16, page 396, it was held as follows: “15. Once a suit is presented before the civil Court, the examination thereof is taken up at various stages and from different angles. When the plaint presented before a Court does not accord with the procedural aspects, it is returned to the plaintiff pointing out the objections. Opportunity is given for compliance. There objections may include those relating to adequacy of Court fee, doubt as to the jurisdiction of the Court, be it of territorial, pecuniary or the one of subject-matter, maintainability or otherwise of the suit, in the light of the provisions contained in the various statutes, statement of cause of action with the required amount of certainty etc. Whenever a plaint is returned, the plaintiff would have a right to represent the same either by compliance with the deficiency pointed out by the Court or by explaining as to how the objection raised by Court does not arise. Whenever a plaint is returned, the plaintiff would have a right to represent the same either by compliance with the deficiency pointed out by the Court or by explaining as to how the objection raised by Court does not arise. If the plaint is once again returned on not being satisfied with the explanation offered or lapse committed by the plaintiff, the remedy is to challenge the same by filing a revision. 16. When, the Court finds that the suit presented before it is barred on any grounds mentioned in Rule 11 of Order VII CPC, it would entail in rejection of the plaint. Such rejection can be ordered by the Court on its own accord, or on application filed by the opposite party. One important aspect that needs to be borne in mind is that while a plaint can be returned only at a stage before it is numbered, whereas rejection can be ordered at any stage till the suit is disposed of.” 8. In KOTAPATI RAMALAKSHMI’s case (2 supra), a suit was instituted before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Nellore claiming compensation from the date of dispossession ie. 18.12.1989 till the date of institution of the suit i.e. 23.4.2008. The office of the said Court took an objection stating that the claim of the plaintiff relating to the period from 18-12-1989 to 22.4.2005 is barred by limitation and the suit is maintainable only from 23.4.2005 till the date of institution of the suit and before numbering the suit, returned the plaint. Aggrieved thereby, Civil Revision Petition was filed before this Court. This Court observed that the suit is between the Court and the plaintiffs, it dispensed with notice to the defendant and allowed the Civil Revision Petition. The defendant in the suit sought a review of the said order contending that the order of the trial Court is a deemed decree under sub-section (2) of Section 2 CPC, and only a regular appeal lies against it under section 96 of CPC but not a revision and that as part of the suit claim is barred by limitation, the suit is not maintainable. This Court held that on the facts of that case, the trial Court therein had only returned the plaint directing the plaintiff to restrict the claim for compensation and represent the plaint and therefore it was not a case of rejection of the plaint per se under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC. It therefore held that when it is not a case of rejection of plaint, the question of filing appeal does not arise. Further, whenever a plaint is returned, the plaintiff would have a right to represent the same either by compliance with the deficiency pointed out by the Court or by explaining as to how the objection raised by the Court does not arise. If the plaint is once again returned on not being satisfied with the explanation offered or lapse committed by the plaintiff, the remedy is to challenge the same by filing revision. In paras 11 and 12 at page 659-660, the Hon’ble Court reiterated what was stated in paras 15 and 16 in A.A.Lords Shoes Pvt. Ltd.’s case (1 supra), extracted above. 9. In MOLUGU RAM REDDY’ s case (3 supra ), a Full Bench of this Court held that an order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is deemed to be a decree and only appeal under section 96 CPC lies against the same and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with section 104 is not maintainable. 10. As can be seen from the above three judgments, they hold that where a plaint is returned, a revision is maintainable and where the plaint is rejected, an appeal under section 96 of CPC is maintainable. 11. We are of the opinion that the true effect of the order passed by the trial court has to be looked into (and not the nomenclature used by it-the words “plaint returned” or “plaint rejected” are not conclusive) . If the effect of the order of the trial court is in fact, a “rejection” of the plaint (although the order of the trial court says it is “returned”), only an appeal under section 96 CPC lies and not a CRP under Section 115 of CPC. 12. It may be that normally a plaint is “returned” at a stage before it is numbered while its “rejection” can be ordered at any stage till the suit is disposed of. 12. It may be that normally a plaint is “returned” at a stage before it is numbered while its “rejection” can be ordered at any stage till the suit is disposed of. But there may be situations like the one in the present case where the trial Court erroneously “rejects” the plaint before it is numbered by wrongly stating that the plaint is “returned”. 13. On perusal of the order of the trial Court, it is clear that although the said order states that the plaint is “returned”, since the trial Court did not state (I) that it is returned on the ground of want of jurisdiction (either territorial or pecuniary or with regard to the subject matter), or (ii) in which Court the suit should have been instituted, or (iii) that some other court/forum is the proper court/forum, it has to be held that it has actually “rejected” the plaint. 14. We are therefore of the view that the appellant/plaintiff has rightly filed appeal under section 96 CPC and we reject the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 6 that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 96 CPC and that the appellant/plaintiff ought to have filed a CRP under section 115 CPC. 15. We hold that any rejection of a plaint can only be made in accordance with Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. It is not the finding of the trial Court that any one of the clauses mentioned in Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC was attracted warranting rejection of the plaint. Therefore, we hold that the trial Court erred in returning the plaint/rejecting it at the threshold even without numbering the suit. The trial Court also erred in going into the tenability of the plaintiff’s claim for partition as adopted daughter at the stage of numbering the suit and rejecting the plaint at the said stage on the ground that an adopted daughter cannot invoke S.29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . The trial Court also erred in going into the tenability of the plaintiff’s claim for partition as adopted daughter at the stage of numbering the suit and rejecting the plaint at the said stage on the ground that an adopted daughter cannot invoke S.29-A of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . It ought to have numbered the suit, issued notice to the respondents, framed an issue (if it felt necessary) as to whether the plaintiff, claiming to be an adopted daughter of the defendants 1 and 2, would be entitled to the relief sought for or not by virtue of Section 29 (A) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( AP Amendment Act 13 of 1986 ) or Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 ( As amended by Act 39 of 2005) and then it ought to have decided the plaintiff’s claim on it’s merits. 16. We therefore, set aside the docket order dated 20-12-2004 in OS SR No.5894 of 2004 and remit back the matter to the trial Court directing it to number the suit (if it is otherwise in accordance with law, issue notice to the defendants and then decide the suit on merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the order dated 20-12-2004 in OS SR NO.5894 of 2004. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion about the claim of the appellant/plaintiff for partition on the basis of her adoption and the same has to be decided by the trial Court after numbering the suit and after trial, strictly as per law. 17. With the above directions, the appeal stands allowed. No costs. The Registry is directed to forthwith return the original plaint to the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff for presentation before the trial Court. 18. Insofar ASMP NO.1219 of 2012 is concerned, it has been filed by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from alienating/transferring either by sale, mortgage or otherwise by creating third party rights over the schedule properties pending disposal of the appeal. 19. In view of the fact that we have allowed the AS No.273 of 2005 today, and remitted the matter back to the trial Court to decide the suit itself on merits, we do not feel it necessary to decide the said ASMP. 19. In view of the fact that we have allowed the AS No.273 of 2005 today, and remitted the matter back to the trial Court to decide the suit itself on merits, we do not feel it necessary to decide the said ASMP. Accordingly, it is dismissed granting liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to move the trial Court seeking such relief in the trial Court. If such an application is filed, the trial Court is directed to decide it uninfluenced by any observations made in this order or the orders dated 20-12-2004 in OS SR No.5894 of 2004. 20. ASMP No.1219 of 2012 is accordingly dismissed.