JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of the parties, the appeal has been finally heard. 2. The appellant is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2012 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Sojat, District Pali, whereby, the appeal preferred by the defendants under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 and Section 107 CPC against order dated 03.08.2011 passed by the trial court has been allowed and the plaint has been ordered to be returned under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC for presenting the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The facts in brief are that the appellant filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction relating to suit land against the respondent-defendants. The defendants besides raising defence on merit, also raised objection about maintainability of the suit before the Civil Court and it was submitted that the nature of land being agriculture, the suit was only maintainable before the Revenue Court. 4. The trial court framed several issues including issue Nos. 5 and 6 regarding maintainability of suit and jurisdiction of Court respectively and after hearing the parties on the said issues by its order dated 03.08.2011 ordered as under:- " ;s nksuksa fcUnq lk{; dh fo"k;oLrq gS vr% bl LVst ij r; fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% bl rudh dk fuLrkj.k ewy nkos esa vafre fuLrkj.k ds le; loZizFke fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gSA oknh vk;ank is'kh ij vius lk{kh mi0 j[ksA ;fn 'kiFk i= is'k djuk pkgsa rks is'kh ls rhu fnu iwoZ rd odhy izoknh dks copy provide djk dj is'k djsaA i=koyh okLrs lk0 oknh fnukad 10-10-2011@10-10-2011 dks is'k gksA " 5. Surprisingly, instead of challenging the said order dated 03.08.2011 by way of any other appropriate proceedings, the defendants chose to file first appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 and Section 107 CPC before the Additional District Judge, Sojat. 6. An objection was promptly raised by the plaintiff that the appeal was not maintainable as under Section 96 the appeal is maintainable only against a judgment and decree and the trial court has merely postponed the decision on two issues, against which, the appeal was not maintainable. 7. 6. An objection was promptly raised by the plaintiff that the appeal was not maintainable as under Section 96 the appeal is maintainable only against a judgment and decree and the trial court has merely postponed the decision on two issues, against which, the appeal was not maintainable. 7. The trial court took into consideration the said objection and dealt with the same as under:- " tgka rd vk{ksfir vkns'k ds fo:) vihy dh iks"k.kh;rk dk iz'u gS] fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds vk/kkj ij lajf{kr fook|dksa esa ls fook|d la[;k 6 " vk;k okn d`f"k Hkwfe ls laca/k gksus ls bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj dk ugha gS " ij loZizFke i{kdkjksa dh cgl lqudj vk{ksfir fu.kZ;] blds lanHkZ esa ikfjr fd;k gSA pwafd fook|d ds lanHkZ esa ikfjr fu.kZ; ds fo:) gh ;g vihy bl U;k;ky; esa is'k dh xbZ gS] Hkys gh fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; us bls vkns'k ds :i esa m)r fd;k gS] ysfdu ;g fook|d la[;k 6 ij ikfjr fd;k x;k fu.kZ; gS] ftlds fo:) vihy iks"k.kh; gSA bl izdkj fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ ds bl rdZ esa dksbZ fof/kd cy ugha ik;k tkrk gS fd ;g vihy iks"k.kh; ugha gSA bl lanHkZ esa izLrqr U;k; n`"Vkar izR;FkhZx.k dks dksbZ enn ugh djrk ftlls llEeku vlgefr O;Dr dh tkrh gSA " 8. Thereafter, the trial court passed the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2012 as indicated hereinbefore. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the consideration of the first appellate court on the maintainability of the appeal while passing the judgment and decree is clearly erroneous and the same cannot be sustained. Mere postponement of a decision on the issue cannot and does not give rise to a decree so as to make that order amenable to first appellate jurisdiction under Section 96 CPC. The first appellate court has held that as the order has been passed qua the issues relating to jurisdiction, the appeal would be maintainable. It is apparent that the first appellate court has not even cared to look into the basic requirements of Section 96 and has recorded absolutely frivolous reasons for upholding the maintainability of the appeal. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is quashed and set aside. It is apparent that the first appellate court has not even cared to look into the basic requirements of Section 96 and has recorded absolutely frivolous reasons for upholding the maintainability of the appeal. 10. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court is quashed and set aside. The suit is restored back to the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sojat for dealing the matter from the stage of its order dated 03.08.2011 onwards. Parties are directed to appear before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sojat on 13.05.2013. No costs.Appeal Allowed. *******