The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is a decree under Section 2(2). Consequently, such an order is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it constitutes a final adjudication, not merely an interlocutory order restricted by the proviso.
Facts Of The Case:
The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, filed a commercial suit before the Commercial Court. The respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and others, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. Their ground was that the appellant had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The trial Court accepted this application and rejected the plaint. The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order rejecting a plaint does not fall within the ambit of Order XLIII of the CPC, and thus, a challenge could not be maintained under the said section. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the rejection of a plaint is a decree under CPC and is therefore appealable. The core legal controversy was the appealability of an Order VII Rule 11 rejection order under the Commercial Courts Act.
Procedural History:
The procedural history commenced with the respondents filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before the Commercial Court (trial court), seeking rejection of the plaint for non-compliance with mandatory pre-institution mediation. The trial court allowed this application and rejected the plaint. The appellant then filed an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 before the High Court. The High Court, however, dismissed this appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order rejecting a plaint is not an appealable order enumerated under Order XLIII CPC. This dismissal by the High Court led the appellant to file a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, culminating in the present civil appeal.
READ ALSO:Right to Privacy Prevails: Supreme Court Rejects Forced DNA Test in Paternity Dispute
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC conclusively determines the rights of the parties in the suit and is expressly deemed a “decree” under Section 2(2) of the CPC. It held that Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in its main provision, permits appeals against ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of a Commercial Court. The proviso, which restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specified under Order XLIII CPC, operates as an exception and does not curtail the right to appeal against a final adjudication like a decree. Consequently, the Court ruled that an order rejecting a plaint, being a decree, is directly appealable under Section 13(1A) and the High Court erred in declaring the appeal non-maintainable.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned order of the High Court, and set it aside. It held that the appeal filed by the appellant-company before the High Court was maintainable. Consequently, the Court restored the appeal to the High Court’s file with its original number, directing the High Court to consider and decide it on its merits in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
Case Title: MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s. Renuka Realtors & Ors. Civil Appeal No: (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025) Date of Judgement: November 10, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Download The Judgement Here