Supreme Court: In the case where the Court was called upon to decide whether an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA, 2015), the bench of Vikarm Nath and Sandeep Mehta*, JJ held that an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC decides the lis finally and would tantamount to a ‘decree’ within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and hence, appealable before the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.
Background
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s order dated 17-02- 2025, which dismissed MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.’s commercial appeal as non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the CCA 2015.
The appellant had filed a commercial suit before the District Judge, Nashik, seeking recovery of ₹2.52 crore for non-payment of TMT/Fe-500 material supplied to the respondents. The respondents applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint, arguing that the appellant failed to undertake mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the CCA, 2015. The trial court accepted this objection and rejected the plaint on 10-11- 2022.
The appellant then appealed under Section 13(1A) of the CCA 2015, but the High Court held that an order rejecting a plaint is not appealable under Order XLIII CPC, and hence the appeal was not maintainable. The appellant, hence, challenged the said High Court order before the Supreme Court through a special leave petition.
The appellant argued that under Section 2(2) CPC, the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 amounts to a “decree,” as it conclusively determines the rights of the parties. Therefore, an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA 2015 was maintainable, and the High Court erred in dismissing it as non-maintainable.
In response, the respondents contended that the High Court’s view aligned with the Bombay High Court’s decision in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667, which was affirmed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme. Hence, the High Court’s order was legally correct, and no interference was warranted.
Analysis
Interpreting Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, the Court said that the provision is in two distinct parts but both should be construed harmoniously. The Court noted that while the main provision contemplates appeals against ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of the Commercial Court to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court, the proviso, operating as an exception, must be construed harmoniously with the main provision and not in derogation thereof.
“Where the language of the main provision is plain and unambiguous, the proviso cannot be invoked to curtail or whittle down the scope of the principal enactment, save and except where such exclusion is clearly and expressly contemplated.”
The Court further explained that the proviso merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, only such interlocutory orders as are expressly specified therein would be amenable to an appeal under the proviso; orders not so enumerated would not fall within the restricted fold of the proviso and hence, would not be amenable to an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.
The Court observed that a plaintiff who is aggrieved of the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless or compelled to institute a fresh suit for availing such a challenge.
The Court also distinguished the ruling in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667, as the said case involved a challenge to an order rejecting application(s) under Order VII Rule 10 and Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, which order(s) are not enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC.
The Court, hence, quashed and set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court and restored the appeal preferred by the appellant-company in the High Court. The High Court has to now consider and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law.
[MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited v. Renuka Realtors, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 10428/2025, decided on 10.11.2025]
*Judgment Authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Doijode, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. M/S Mps Legal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Bhaskar Nayak, AOR