ORDER 19.01.2016 Present : Mr. Banshidhar Baug, Learned counsel for the petitioner Learned counsel for the opposite parties. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. This matter was listed on 12.01.2016 on the request of learned counsel for the opposite parties, the matter was adjourned to 14.01.2016 and consequently, the matter was listed on 14.01.2016 and consequently, the matter was listed on 14.01.2016 and on the said date, during course of submission, learned counsel for the opposite parties took adjournment to go through the decision reported in Vol. 96 (2003) CLT 323 for appropriate response to the Court and the matter was therefore adjourned to today. Today, at the start of hearing, learned counsel for opposite parties also prayed for adjournment. In view of the repeated adjournment, this Court is not inclined to grant any further adjournment and the matter is decided only on merit. In assailing the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in a matter for consideration of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. on merit, the Revisional Court has a limited jurisdiction to consider the illegality involved in the impugned order and in the event, it feels that there is material in considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 in a particular manner, it has no other option than to remit the matter back to the trial Court for taking up the application under Order 7 Rule 11 for passing a fresh order. In referring to a decision as reported in 2004 (9) SC 512 learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the settled position of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order passed in an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. refusing to reject a plaint gave rise a scope for filing an appeal by the party aggrieved. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the trial Court is appealable and there is no scope for the opposite parties for moving a revision. Further in citing a decision of this Court as reported in Vol. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the trial Court is appealable and there is no scope for the opposite parties for moving a revision. Further in citing a decision of this Court as reported in Vol. 96 (2003) CLT 323, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even assuming the position of law settled by this Court that a Revision is maintainable but the position settled in the decision cited (supra), the Revisional Court cannot itself allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. Except in the event, it is of the opinion that there remains any merit in the application to remit the matter back to the original Court for considering the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand, contended that in view of the reasons assigned by the Revisional Authority, there is no infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order leaving no scope for this Court for interfering in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. Further in referring to the Orissa amendment of the Section 115 of C.P.C., learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that in view of the amendment brought in the year 2010 and the suit being of the year 2009, the Revision was very much maintainable. Heard. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and on perusal of the decision as reported in 2004 (9) SC 512, this Court finds the observations of the Apex Court that in view of the provision available at that point of time and further considering the fact that refusal of rejection of a plaint is in a nature of a preliminary judgment, hence appealable. Looking to the amended provision contained in C.P.C. in the year 2010 in respect of the Section 115 of C.P.C. in the year 2010 in respect of the Section 115 of C.P.C. and since the decision referred to hereinabove, being of the year 2004, the same is not applicable to the present case and this Court finds that the revision at the instance of the opposite parties was very much maintainable. Be that as it may, now this Court is required to consider the scope of the Revisional Authority in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Vo. Be that as it may, now this Court is required to consider the scope of the Revisional Authority in view of the decision rendered by this Court in Vo. 96 (2003) CLT 323, this Court in similar situation considering the case involved therein in paragraph 7 has come to hold as follows: “7. Since an order passed in rejecting the claim under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code for lack of cause of action amounts to a decree, therefore, such an order is appealable. But where an application under Order 7 Rule 11 is rejected that is not appealable. Under such circumstances, whenever the Court finds illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the Court below in rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, then the revisional Court has the jurisdiction under Section 115 to consider the legality and sustainability of such orders because it has the effect of leading to a consequence for disposal of the suit. In the event a revision is entertained, then in appropriate case the revisional Court may pass appropriate order directing the Court below to correctly assess the fact by following the provisions of law, but since the effect of rejection of a plaint under Order,7 , Rule 11 (a) has the force of a decree, the revisional Court should not pass an order rejecting a plaint while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115. The above view gains support from the ratio in the case of Purusottam Das and sons Vrs. S.B.I., Vol. 33 (1991) OJC 228 (Civil).” Looking to the settled position of law already given by this Court as referred to hereinabove, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the Revisional Authority has a limited role in the matter of hearing on rejection of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. and in the event, it feels that there is some substance in considering the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C., then the Revisional Authority is to remit the matter back to the original Authority for fresh consideration of the matter. Considering the submissions made by the respective parties and looking to the settled position by this Court in a decision as reported (supra), this Court is of the view that the Revisional Court while considering the revision has exceeded its jurisdiction and therefore, while interfering in the revisional order, this Court sets-aside the same and directs the Revisional Authority to take a decision thereon afresh taking into consideration the observation of this Court as well as the decision reported in Vol. 96(2003) CLT 323. Revisional Court is directed to take up the Revision and dispose the same afresh and afresh order be passed without being influenced with the observations already made in the impugned order. In view of disposal of the writ petition, interim order passed earlier stands vacated and all the pending Misc. Cases arising out of this petition stand dismissed accordingly.