Order Rejecting Plaint Is Appealable Under Commercial Courts Act; High Court Order Quashed and Appeal Restored

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal arising from a special leave petition against a Bombay High Court order which had held an appeal challenging the rejection of a plaint to be not maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure amounted to a decree and was therefore appealable to the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court under Section 13(1A).

The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court judgment and held that the appeal filed in the High Court was maintainable; it restored the appeal to the High Court for consideration on merits. The Court observed 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." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court directed that the High Court would decide the restored appeal on merits in accordance with law.

Background The dispute arose from a recovery suit filed by MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. before the District Judge, Nashik, seeking approximately Rs. 2.52 crore for supply of TMT/Fe-500 material. The respondents moved to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the plaintiff had not undertaken mandatory pre-institution mediation and settlement (PIMS) under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The trial court accepted the application and rejected the plaint by order dated 10 November 2022. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court under Section 13(1A) CCA; the High Court held the appeal to be not maintainable on the ground that an order rejecting the plaint was not one of the orders enumerated in Order XLIII CPC and therefore fell outside the proviso to Section 13(1A). The respondents relied on a Bombay High Court decision in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, which this Court had earlier affirmed by order, to support that position. The appellant relied on Section 2(2) CPC and precedent, including Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, where this Court noted that "Such an order amounts to a decree under Section 2(2), and there is a right of appeal open to the plaintiff." Distinguishing the Bank of India line of reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 13(1A) restricted interlocutory orders specifically enumerated and could not be read to exclude final decrees such as an order rejecting a plaint. The Supreme Court quashed the impugned High Court order, restored the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits, allowed the appeal and directed that pending applications, if any, stand disposed of; it made no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1300 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10428 of 2025) Case Title: MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v. M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Jay Savla, Senior Counsel (for MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.); Shri Dinkar Trimbak Kajale (authorized officer, appellant-company) For the Respondent(s): Shri Sukumar P. Joshi, Senior Counsel (for M/s Renuka Realtors)