Supreme Court Holds Appeal Maintainable Against Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11—Commercial Courts Act Proviso Cannot Override Main Provision

Case Name: MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Renuka Realtors & Ors.
Citation: Civil Appeal @ SLP (Civil) No. 10428 of 2025; 2025 INSC 1300
Date of Judgment/Order: 10 November 2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Meht

Held: The Supreme Court held that an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and therefore appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The proviso to Section 13(1A), which limits appeals from interlocutory orders to those enumerated in Order XLIII CPC, cannot restrict the maintainability of appeals from decrees. The Court clarified that the High Court incorrectly applied the decision in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works because that case concerned rejection of applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(d), not rejection of plaints. Since a plaintiff cannot be left without remedy when a plaint is rejected, the appeal before the High Court was fully maintainable.

Summary: The appellant-company filed a commercial suit seeking recovery of approximately ₹2.52 crores for unpaid supply of TMT/Fe-500 material. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to undertake mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The trial court accepted the objection and rejected the plaint on 10.11.2022. The plaintiffs appealed under Section 13(1A) CCA. The High Court dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable, holding that an order rejecting a plaint is not appealable because it is not an order enumerated in Order XLIII CPC. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that rejection of a plaint is expressly deemed a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and that Section 13(1A) permits appeals from decrees passed by Commercial Courts. The respondents relied on the Bombay High Court decision in Maruti Civil Works. The Supreme Court distinguished that case and examined the statutory scheme of the CCA, holding that the proviso applies only to interlocutory orders, not decrees. The Court reaffirmed Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, confirming that rejection of a plaint conclusively determines the lis and thus qualifies as a decree. The Court also noted that denying an appellate remedy would unjustly compel a plaintiff to file a fresh suit.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s judgment, and held that the appeal filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act was maintainable because rejection of the plaint is a decree under Section 2(2) CPC. It restored the appeal to the High Court’s original file and directed it to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law, leaving parties to bear their own costs.