Is this Order of the Court a Decree?

(2) "decree" means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court

expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the

matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to

include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within [3]* * * section 144,

but shall not include-

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.

Explanation-A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit

can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit,

it may be partly preliminary and partly final

Dear Assumi Sir, above is the definition of Decree provided under the CPC 1908.

you query is replied by the provision itself, please have a look at exclusion clause....clause b in particular.

Dear Kiran Sir, thank you so much for your responds. Now, the Order of the Civil Judge is dismissal in default for non appereance of the Plintiff under the provisions of CPC and I am of the view that it is not Decree within the meaning of section 2 (2) of the CPC. If we take it that it is a Decree should the Plintiff file Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent  against the said Judgment?

since there is no adjudication of the rights of the parties the impugned order can not be taken as a decree.

I would rather file a Revision Petition under Art.226/227 of the constitution of India.........otherwise the concerned HC may prescribe other procedure also.

Thanks Kiran. Question is does the Juddge become functus officio after passing the Order?

functus officio ?

Please correct me if I am wrong ...

I believed about meaning of  'functus officio' that .....................

................  "unless the litigant climbs the doorsteps of the upper court to seek the redressal against adverse verdict and to same court " ..........

and ................ "unless ... thus the jurisdiction of court which passed order/decree/judgment etc happens to be seized by upper court, by allowing to admit/file the redressal prayer vide revision/appeal etc etc)" ................

and ................ "unless the jurisdiction of trial court is not extinct/ not ceased to exist by limitation period of "review" or ................ unless the condonation of delay is not rejected" ................

and ................ "unless the litigant hasn't taken recourse to 'review' or "inherent jurisdiction" to redress the adverse verdict at the same court!!! (and needless to say that prayer shouldn't apparantly look like an "appeal in disguise" etc ) ................

then and then only ................  the trial court becomes "functus officio" in regards to 'trial' otherwise not.

Review /inherent jurisdiction .... Courts don't just have powers to pass erroneous judgments/decrees/orders ....... and Courts can't just say  ... "I don't have powers to withdraw my own decision although erroneous one!! .... but please go to upper court!!" ...... but also does have powers to set aside its own verdict ..........  if it fits in the definitions and limited scope to do that!!!

Here whether you call the erroneous verdict or "error  on the face of record" in the trial (and hence the erroneous judgment!! ) .... it is a different view from a different window ......... to same scenario!!!! ......................

Else victim of adverse and erroneous verdict would be made to run from pillars to post to set it nullified .............

....... and may also have to face the other ordeals of 'staying the execution' of the impugned order etc etc.

Thanks Jamai Of Law.

Mr. Kiran Kumar is absolutely right: - it is not decree.

well we are talking of suit one can resort to provison of order 9 rule 4 CPC also 

ORDER IX- APPEARANCE OF PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCE OF NON-APPEARANCE

4. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore suit to file— Where a suit is dismissed under rule 2 or
rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit, or he may apply for an order to set
the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for [161][such failure as is
referred to in rule 2], or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting
aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit