Supreme Court: Order Rejecting Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is Appealable under Section 13(1A) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) qualifies as a “decree” within the meaning of Section 2(2) CPC and is, therefore, appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA). The Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s view that such an appeal was not maintainable and restored the appellant’s commercial appeal for adjudication on merits.

Background:

1. The appellant-company filed Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021 before the District Judge, Nashik, seeking recovery of ₹2.52 crore for non-payment of TMT/Fe-500 material supplied to the respondents.
2. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. The trial court accepted the objection and rejected the plaint on 10 November 2022.
4. The appellant’s subsequent appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA was dismissed by the Bombay High Court as “non-maintainable,” holding that an order rejecting a plaint does not fall under Order XLIII CPC.
5. The appellant challenged the decision before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observations:

1. The Court emphasized that under Section 2(2) CPC, rejection of a plaint constitutes a decree, as it conclusively determines the rights of the parties. Hence, such an order is appealable.
2. Relying on Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad (1973) 2 SCC 524, the Court reaffirmed that an order rejecting a plaint amounts to a decree, granting a right of appeal to the aggrieved plaintiff.
3. The proviso to Section 13(1A) CCA limits appeals only against interlocutory orders, not final adjudications such as rejection of a plaint.
4. The Court distinguished the Bombay High Court’s decision in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667), which dealt with rejection of applications under Order VII Rules 10 and 11(d) CPC, and held that the present case was materially different.
5. It clarified that plaintiffs cannot be left remediless or compelled to file a fresh suit when a plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

Decision:

1. The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment.
2. Held that the appeal before the High Court was maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
3. The matter was remanded to the High Court for decision on merits.
4. No order as to costs.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

1. Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Rejection of plaint.
2. Section 2(2), CPC – Definition of “decree.”
3. Section 13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Appeals from decrees and orders.
4. Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.
5. Article 136, Constitution of India – Special Leave Jurisdiction.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1300

Case: MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s. Renuka Realtors & Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta

Date of Decision: 10 November 2025

Civil Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10428 of 2025