Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Clarifying procedural law under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Act”), the Supreme Court on Monday (November 10) held that an order allowing an application for rejection of a plaint amounts to a decree and is therefore appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Act. However, an order rejecting such an application is not appealable under the same provision and can instead be challenged through a revision or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the case may be.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Bombay High Court's ruling, which had held that the appellant–plaintiff's appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, challenging the order allowing the respondent–defendant's application for rejection of the plaint, was not maintainable.

The appellant had filed a commercial suit for recovery of over ₹2.5 crore against the Respondent. The Respondent sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation was not undertaken. The Trial Court agreed and rejected the plaint.

When Appellants appealed to the Bombay High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. It reasoned that since an order rejecting a plaint is not listed in Order XLIII of the CPC, it falls outside the purview of the proviso to Section 13(1A) and cannot be appealed.

Being aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the plaintiff-appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, a judgment penned by Justice Mehta held that Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act must be read harmoniously; the main provision permits appeals against any “judgment or order,” while the proviso limits appeals only in respect of interlocutory orders listed under Order XLIII CPC. The proviso cannot narrow the main provision's scope. Since an order rejecting a plaint amounts to a decree (a final order), it squarely falls within the main provision and remains appealable.

The Court distinguished the case of Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 593, which the respondents had relied on. The Court pointed out that in the Bank of India case, the order under challenge was one rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 10/11(d). Such an order, which refuses to reject or return a plaint, is an interlocutory order and is not a decree. Therefore, the only way to appeal it would be if it were listed in Order XLIII, which it is not. This, the Court clarified, was fundamentally different from the present case, where the plaint itself was rejected, resulting in a decree.

“A bare reading of the above paragraph (of Maruti Civil Works) makes it manifest that 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. Thus, there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that such an order would not be amenable to an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, and rather, can be challenged by filing a revision or a petition/application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the appeal preferred by the appellant-company in the High Court was held to be maintainable and hence, restored to its file and original number.

Cause Title: MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. VERSUS M/S. RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1085

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jay Savla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amol Doijode, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Ms. Kenisha Savla, Adv. Mr. Aditya Bajaj, Adv. M/S Mps Legal, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sukumar P. Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bhaskar Nayak, AOR Mr./Ms. Raina Anand, Adv.