JUDGMENT ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Medha N. Pandya, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided finally. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2013, passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Rajula (the District Court for short), in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2012, whereby the order dated 19.07.2012, passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Jafrabad, rejecting the application at Ex.40, preferred by the respondent (plaintiff) under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code for short), has been quashed and set aside. 3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the decision of the petition are that the respondent instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 148 of 2010, against the petitioner, for declaration and injunction. The prayers made by the respondent-plaintiff in the suit, inter alia, are that the registered Sale Deed No. 1110 dated 15.12.2000, in respect of the suit land as described in Paragraph 2 of the memorandum of the petition, be declared void and invalid and may be cancelled. The respondent-plaintiff also preferred an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code for grant of injunction, which came to be rejected. The appeal filed against the rejection of the said application was dismissed by the District Court. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff preferred an application at Ex.40 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, for amendment of the plaint. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.07.2012, after hearing the parties at length. The respondent preferred the abovementioned appeal against the order passed by the Trial Court, which has been allowed by the District Court by passing the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Though a perusal of the memorandum of the petition discloses that the petitioner has taken various grounds on the merits of the case in support of his challenge to the impugned order, however, while making submissions before this Court, Mr. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Though a perusal of the memorandum of the petition discloses that the petitioner has taken various grounds on the merits of the case in support of his challenge to the impugned order, however, while making submissions before this Court, Mr. B.D. Karia, learned advocate for the petitioner, has focussed only on one ground which, according to him, is decisive and would render the other grounds unnecessary. 5. It is submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the District Court deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the District Court has erred in law in entertaining the appeal preferred by the respondent, against an order passed in an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, as there is no provision in the Code for filing an appeal against an order in an application under Order 6 Rule 17. It is submitted that not only has the District Court entertained the appeal, it has also proceeded to allow it. It is contended that when the appeal, itself, is not maintainable, as per the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, any order passed on such appeal is one without jurisdiction, and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms. Medha N. Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent, after going through the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code, submits that the Court may pass an appropriate order. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Court reveals that the objection raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner before this Court does not appear to have been raised before the District Court. Before that Court, submissions appear to have been made on the merits of the case by the learned counsel for the respective parties. The District Court has passed the order on the merits of the case. Before that Court, submissions appear to have been made on the merits of the case by the learned counsel for the respective parties. The District Court has passed the order on the merits of the case. However, a point of law can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, and if the point of law is such that it renders the proceedings to be without jurisdiction, this Court is duty bound, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to consider such legal submissions raised by a party to the proceedings. 9. Section 104 of the Code mentions the orders from which an appeal lies. The said Section is reproduced herein-below: “104. Orders from which appeal lies (1) An appeal shall lie from the following orders, and save as otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any law for the time being in force, from no other orders: xxxxxxxxx (ff) An order under section 35A. (ffa) An order under section 91 or section 92 refusing leave to institute a suit of the nature referred to in section 91 or section 92, as the case may be. (g) An order under section 95. (h) An order under any of the provisions of this Code imposing a fine or directing the arrest or detention in the civil prison of any person except where such arrest or detention is in execution of a decree. (i) Any order made under rules from which an appeal is expressly allowed by rules. Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order specified in clause (ff) save on the ground that no order, or an order for the payment of a less amount, ought to have been made. (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section.” 10. Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code, which is the relevant provision of law insofar as the present petition is concerned, provides for Appeals from Orders and reads as below: “1. Appeal from Orders an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: (a) An order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed. Appeal from Orders an appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: (a) An order under rule 10 of Order VII returning a plaint to be presented to the proper Court [except where the procedure specified in rule 10A of Order VII has been followed. xxxxxxxxx (c) An order under rule 9 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit. (d) An order under rule 13 of Order IX rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte. xxxxxxxxx (f) An order under rule 21 of Order XI. xxxxxxxxx (i) An order under rule 34 of Order XXI on an objection to the draft of a document or of an endorsement. (j) An order under rule 72 or rule 92 of Order XXI setting aside or refusing to set aside a sale. (ja) an order rejecting an application made under sub-rule (1) of rule 106 of Order XXI, provided that an order on the original application, that is to say, the application referred to in subrule (1) of rule 105 of that order is appealable. (k) An order under rule 9 of Order XXII refusing to set aside the abatement or dismissal of a suit. (l) An order under rule 10 of Order XXII giving or refusing to give leave. xxxxxxxxx (n) An Order under rule 2 of Order XXV rejecting an application (in a case open to appeal) for an order to set aside the dismissal of a suit. xxxxxxxxx (p) Orders in inter pleader suits under rule 3, rule 4 or rule 6 of Order XXXV. (q) An order under rule 2, rule 3 or rule 6 of Order XXXVIII. (r) An order under rule 1, rule 2 (Rule 2A), rule 4 or rule 10 of Order XXXIX. (s) An order under rule 1 or rule 4 of Order XL. (t) An order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to readmit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to rehear, an appeal. (u) An order under rule 23 [or rule 23A] of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. (t) An order of refusal under rule 19 of Order XLI to readmit, or under rule 21 of Order XLI to rehear, an appeal. (u) An order under rule 23 [or rule 23A] of Order XLI remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of the Appellate Court. xxxxxxxxx (w) An order under rule 4 of Order XLVIII granting an application for review.” 11. From a perusal of the above provisions, it is quite evident that no appeal lies from an order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. When there is no provision in the Code for preferring an appeal against an order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, it follows that the appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, would not be maintainable and could not have been entertained by the District Court. It appears that the impugned judgment and order of the District Court has been passed without proper application of mind to the relevant provisions of law. The District Court has fallen into error by entertaining the appeal. Such error has been further compounded by allowing the appeal. 12. In view of the above position of law, as no appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code could have been preferred by the respondent, or entertained by the District Court, against an order passed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, the impugned judgment and order dated 13.12.2013, rendered by the District Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 12 of 2012, is one without jurisdiction. Consequently, the said judgment cannot be permitted to stand. It is, hereby quashed and set aside. 13. However, it is open to the respondents to take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings, if aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court passed below the application at Ex.40, dated 19.07.2012. 14. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no orders as to costs.