JUDGMENT : The respondents are the plaintiffs and the appellants are the defendants in O.S.171/2004 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bidar. The suit was filed on 21.08.2004 to pass a decree of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. Written Statement was filed on 25.10.2004 and the suit contested. Issues were raised. Issue No.3 “Whether the suit is improperly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient?” was treated as a preliminary issue and was subjected to trial. Both sides having adduced evidence, an Order dated 29.06.2010 was passed and the plaintiffs directed to furnish fresh valuation slip and pay court fee on the actual market value of the suit property. Said order remained unchallenged. Despite granting sufficient time and the case adjourned on 24 occasions, there being non compliance, on 08.08.2011, the suit was dismissed. 2. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.67/2011 under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, which came up for hearing before the Presiding Officer, FTC-II, at Bidar. On hearing the parties, appeal was allowed, impugned order set aside and suit remanded to the Trial Court by a Judgment dated 31.10.2012. Assailing the judgment of remand, the defendants preferred this appeal. 3. Heard the learned Advocates on both sides and perused the record. Substantial question of law required to be considered is “Whether an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is maintainable?” 4. Issue No.3 raised in the suit was rightly treated as a preliminary issue in view of the mandate of Section 11(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. After trial, wherein, both parties adduced evidence, valuation made by the plaintiffs was found to be incorrect, and by an order dated 29.06.2010 the plaintiffs were directed to furnish fresh valuation and pay requisite court fee. Even after 24 adjournments, plaintiffs having not furnished the correct valuation and failed to pay correct court fee, by an order dated 08.08.2011, in exercise of power under Order VI Rule 11 CPC, suit was dismissed. 5. There is no sub rule under order 43 Rule 1 CPC, which makes provision for preferring an appeal against the dismissal of the suit by invocation of power under Order VII Rule 1 CPC. 5. There is no sub rule under order 43 Rule 1 CPC, which makes provision for preferring an appeal against the dismissal of the suit by invocation of power under Order VII Rule 1 CPC. That being so, remedy to the plaintiff was only by filing an appeal under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC. There being absolutely no scope for the plaintiffs to have preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, the Court below has erred in allowing the miscellaneous appeal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 104 read with Section 107 CPC. 6. Order 43 of the Code provides for appeals from orders. It provides that an appeal shall lie from the orders enumerated therein under the provision of Section 104 CPC. Section 104 of CPC reads as under:- “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:- [****] (ff) an order under section 35A; (ffa) and 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 the 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. 7. Order 41 of the Code provides for appeal from original decrees. The Code empowers the appellate Court to remand the cases in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 23, Order 41 Rule 23(a) and Order 41 Rule 25. 8. (2) No appeal shall lie from any order passed in appeal under this section. 7. Order 41 of the Code provides for appeal from original decrees. The Code empowers the appellate Court to remand the cases in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 23, Order 41 Rule 23(a) and Order 41 Rule 25. 8. In the present case, Trial Court having passed an order dated 08.08.2011, dismissing the suit for non compliance of the order passed on 29.06.2010 i.e., plaintiff’s failure to furnish fresh valuation and pay court fee, resulted into a decree in terms of Section 2(2) CPC. Order 43 of the Code has no application to such a decree as Order 43 of the Code cannot be invoked to assail such a decree. By invocation of power under Section 104 CPC, an appeal can be preferred against the orders shown in sub rules of Rule (1) of Order 43 and not others. 9. The Court below, without formulating a point for consideration with regard to the maintainability of the appeal and in ignorance of the aforesaid provisions, has passed the impugned judgment. Despite the appeal being not maintainable, the court below has allowed the appeal. 10. In the case of KESHARDEO CHAMRIA VS RADHA KISSEN CHAMRIA, AIR 1953 SC 23 , with reference to the clear language of Order 43 rule 1 CPC and its scope, Apex Court has held as follows:- “15. It was not contended that and could not be seriously urged, that an order under s.151 simpliciter is appealable. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, certain specific orders mentioned in s.104 and O.43, R.1 only are appealable and no appeal lies from any other orders (Vide s.105 Civil P.C.). An order made under s.151 is not included in the category of appealable orders.” (underlining is mine) 11. As an order passed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, when finds no place either in Section 104 CPC or under any sub clause of Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and when Section 105 specifically enjoins that no appeal shall lie, in exercise of its original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction except in respect of cases otherwise provided, the appeal being not maintainable, the court below in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Code, has passed the impugned judgment, which being illegal, cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. However, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.