(1.) THESE two revisions have been filed by Arun Kumar Saini against the judgment of the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur.
(2.) FOR deciding these two revisions, detailed facts are not required. It would suffice to state that Arun Kumar Saini filed suit No. 91/87 against the defen-dant-Smt. Ram Dulari and others for declaration and permanent injunction with averments inter- alia that he wanted to apply for two mining leases of marble but the defendant No. 2 Govind Sahai, who was the close friend of the father of the plaintiff, asked that since there were number of applications for mining lease, it would not be possible to allot two mines in his name, therefore, he could make one application in his name and the other in the name of Smt. Ram Dulari, wife of Govind Sahai. Govind Sahai represented to the plaintiff that in case lease was granted in the name of his wife, the same would be transferred later on in favour of the plaintiff. Smt. Ram Diary undertook to execute a power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff conferring upon him all the rights necessary for mining operations. This power of attorney was for limited period till a formal lease was not executed by the Department. All the expenses were incurred by the plaintiff for two leases; one in his favour and the other in favour of Smt. Ram Diary. Plaintiff claimed that he was the owner of both of them.
(3.) IN have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents raise a preliminary objection for the maintainability of the revision No. 597/91 which had been preferred against the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C. P. C. He contended that the rejection of the plaint amounts to a decree under section 2 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the order passed on the same was appealable under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that the revision filed by the plaintiff against the order rejecting the plaint was incompetent and liable to be dismissed.