The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on November 10, 2025, has held that an order passed by a Commercial Court rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA, 2015).
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta ruled that the rejection of a plaint is deemed to be a “decree” under Section 2(2) of the CPC. Therefore, an appeal against it lies under the main provision of Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, and is not barred by the proviso, which restricts appeals against interlocutory orders.
The Court set aside a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which had held such an appeal to be non-maintainable.
Background of the Case
The appellant, MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited, had instituted Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021 before the District Judge, Nashik (trial Court), seeking the recovery of Rs. 2,52,38,828/- from the respondents, M/s. Renuka Realtors and Ors., for the alleged failure to make payment for the supply of TMT/Fe-500 material.
The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint. The ground for rejection was the appellant-company’s failure to undertake the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as required by Section 12A of the CCA, 2015.
On November 10, 2022, the trial Court accepted the respondents’ application and rejected the plaint.
Aggrieved by this rejection, the appellant-company preferred Commercial First Appeal No. 8 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015. However, the High Court, by its order dated February 17, 2025, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The High Court held that an order rejecting a plaint is not specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC, which, according to the High Court, limited the scope of appeals under the proviso to Section 13(1A).
The appellant-company subsequently challenged the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Shri Jay Savla, learned senior counsel for the appellant-company, referred to Section 2(2) of the CPC, which defines a “decree”. He argued that the definition “shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. He contended that as the rejection of a plaint is a final adjudication deemed to be a decree, the appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015 was maintainable, and the High Court had erred in its interpretation.
Conversely, Shri Sukumar P. Joshi, learned senior counsel for the respondents, supported the High Court’s order. He relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667), which he submitted was affirmed by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, to argue that the appeal was rightly held to be not maintainable.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court, in the judgment authored by Justice Mehta, began by framing the central controversy: “whether an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.”
The bench unequivocally stated, “There cannot be any two views on the aspect 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 cited its previous decision in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad ((1973) 2 SCC 524), quoting: “In the present case, the plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Such an order amounts to a decree under Section 2(2), and there is a right of appeal open to the plaintiff.”
The judgment then analyzed the structure of Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015. The Court observed that the section is in “two distinct parts”: the main provision allowing appeals against ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’, and a proviso.
The Court held that the proviso operates as an exception and “merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders to those specifically enumerated under Order XLIII CPC”. It clarified that the proviso “cannot be invoked to curtail or whittle down the scope of the principal enactment.”
As the rejection of a plaint is a “decree”—a final adjudication—it is appealable under the main provision of Section 13(1A), and the proviso, which applies to interlocutory orders, is not applicable.
The Supreme Court also distinguished the Bank of India case relied upon by the respondents. The bench noted that the case was “clearly distinguishable” because it involved a challenge to an order rejecting an application moved under Order VII Rule 10 or Rule 11(d), which is an interlocutory order not enumerated in Order XLIII. This, the Court found, was different from an order that rejects the plaint itself, which amounts to a decree.
The Court concluded its analysis by observing, “The 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.”
Decision
The Supreme Court held that the impugned order of the Bombay High Court “does not stand to scrutiny” and was “hereby quashed and set aside.”
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.” The Supreme Court directed the High Court to “consider and decide the same on merits, in accordance with law.” The appeal was allowed accordingly.
