Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1300
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025)
MITC ROLLING MILLS
PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/S. RENUKA REALTORS
AND ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The instant appeal is directed against the final
th
judgment and order dated 17 February, 2025,
1
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.11.10
16:57:20 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
1
in Commercial First Appeal No. 8 of 2023, arising out
of Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021, whereby the High
Court disposed of the appeal preferred by MITC
2
Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. , through its authorized officer
Shri Dinkar Trimbak Kajale, as a non-suit simpliciter,
holding the same to be non-maintainable under
3
Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 .
4. The facts relevant and essential for the
adjudication of the present appeal are mentioned
hereinbelow.
5. The appellant-company instituted Commercial
Suit No. 06 of 2021 before the Court of District Judge,
4
Nashik seeking recovery of a sum of
Rs.1,64,60,528/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Four
Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight
Only) towards principal and Rs.87,78,300/- (Rupees
Eighty Seven Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Three
Hundred Only) towards interest, aggregating to
Rs.2,52,38,828/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Two
Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred
Twenty-Eight Only), alleging that the respondents
2
Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-company”.
3
For short, ‘CCA, 2015’.
4
Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
2
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
failed to make payment for the supply of TMT/Fe-500
material effected by the appellant-company.
6. Upon appearance, the respondents filed an
application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
5
Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint
on the ground that the appellant-company had not
undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation
and Settlement (PIMS) as contemplated under
Section 12A of the CCA, 2015. The trial Court
accepted the said application and rejected the plaint
th
vide order dated 10 November, 2022. At this stage,
the detailed factual matrix concerning the filing of an
interim application by the appellant-company for
urgent interim reliefs along with the suit, the prayer
for exemption from pre-institution mediation, and the
aspect of non-consideration of the same is not being
adverted to.
7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint,
the appellant-company preferred an appeal under
Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, before the High
Court, raising various grounds for consideration. The
High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the
5
For short, ‘CPC’.
3
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order
rejecting the plaint does not fall within the ambit of
Order XLIII of CPC, and therefore, such a challenge
could not be maintained under Section 13(1A) of the
CCA, 2015, read with the proviso appended thereto.
The order passed by the High Court is under
challenge in the present proceedings by way of
special leave.
8. To buttress the contention questioning the
legality of the impugned order, Shri Jay Savla,
learned senior counsel representing the appellant-
company, referred to Section 2(2) of the CPC, which
reads as below: -
“(2) “decree” means the formal expression of an
adjudication which, so far as regards the Court
expressing it, conclusively determines the rights
of the parties with regard to all or any of the
matters in controversy in the suit and may be
either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed
to include the rejection of a plaint and the
determination of any question within section
144, but shall not include
(a) any adjudication from which an appeal
lies as an appeal from an order, or
(b) any order of dismissal for default.”
4
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
9. Learned senior counsel fervently urged that the
expression ‘decree’ means a formal expression of an
adjudication which conclusively determines the
rights of the parties and includes within its ambit the
rejection of a plaint. He submitted that by virtue of
the clear definition of ‘decree’ as provided under
Section 2(2) of the CPC, an order passed under Order
VII Rule 11 of the CPC rejecting the plaint is deemed
to be a decree as the same is a final adjudication of
the lis before the concerned Court. Consequently, the
appeal preferred under Section 13(1A) of the CCA,
2015 was maintainable and the High Court
committed a grave error in holding otherwise. It was
thus contended that the impugned judgment is ex
facie unsustainable in law and the present appeal
deserves to be accepted.
10. , learned senior counsel Shri
Per contra
Sukumar P. Joshi, representing the respondents,
vehemently urged that the view taken by the High
Court holding the appeal to be not maintainable is
supported by the judgment of the Bombay High Court
6
in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works , which a
6
2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667.
5
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
three-Judge Bench of this Court has affirmed vide
7
order dated 15th March, 2024. Thus, the High Court
was wholly justified in rejecting the appeal preferred
by the appellant-company.
11.
He, therefore, urged that the appeal deserves to
be dismissed as the impugned judgment is in
consonance with the settled legal position and does
not warrant any interference by this Court in exercise
of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone
through the impugned judgment and the material
placed on record. We have also carefully perused the
precedent(s) cited by the learned counsel for the
parties.
13. The controversy essentially hinges around the
question as to whether an order rejecting the plaint
under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC is appealable
under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.
14. There cannot be any two views on the aspect
that an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII
7
Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works , SLP(C)
6039 of 2024.
6
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
Rule 11 CPC decides the lis finally and would
tantamount to a decree within the meaning of Section
2(2) CPC. Reference in this regard may be made to a
decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh v.
8
Rajinder Prashad , wherein a plaint was rejected
under Order VII Rule 11(b) for not being properly
valued for purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction .
The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is
quoted hereinbelow:
“3. ………………. 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. Furthermore, in a
case in which this Court has granted special
leave, the question whether an appeal lies or not
does not arise. Even otherwise, a second appeal
would lie under Section 100 of the CPC on the
ground that the decision of the first appellate
court on the interpretation of Section 7( iv )( c ) is a
question of law. There is thus no merit in the
preliminary objection.”
[Emphasis supplied]
15. There is also no cavil with the proposition that
a decree passed by a Commercial Court at the level
of a District Judge exercising original civil
jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the Commercial
8
(1973) 2 SCC 524.
7
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
Division of a High Court would ordinarily be
appealable before the High Court under Section
13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, read with the applicable
provisions of the CPC.
16.
At this stage, it would be apposite to take note
of Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, which reads as
under :
“13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial
Courts and Commercial Divisions —
(1) xx
(1A) Any person aggrieved by the judgment or
order of a Commercial Court at the level of
District Judge exercising original civil
jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial
Division of a High Court may appeal to the
Commercial Appellate Division of that High
Court within a period of sixty days from the date
of the judgment or order:
Provided that an appeal shall lie from
such orders passed by a Commercial Division
or a Commercial Court that are specifically
enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended
by this Act and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).]”
[Emphasis supplied]
17. Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, is in two
distinct parts. The main provision contemplates
appeals against ‘ judgments’ and ‘ orders’ of the
8
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
Commercial Court to the Commercial Appellate
Division of the High Court. The proviso, operating as
an exception, must be construed harmoniously with
the main provision and not in derogation thereof.
Where the language of the main provision is plain and
unambiguous, the proviso cannot be invoked to
curtail or whittle down the scope of the principal
enactment, save and except where such exclusion is
clearly and expressly contemplated. The proviso
merely restricts appeals against interlocutory orders
to those specifically enumerated under Order XLIII
CPC and Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. Consequently, only such
interlocutory orders as are expressly specified therein
would be amenable to an appeal under the proviso;
orders not so enumerated would not fall within the
restricted fold of the proviso.
18. Coming to the judgment relied upon by the
respondents, i.e., Bank of India (supra) , we are of
the view that the same is clearly distinguishable, and
the ratio thereof has no applicability to the present
situation because, in the said case, the order under
challenge was one rejecting the application moved
under Order VII Rule 10 or under Order VII Rule 11(d)
9
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
of the CPC. Paragraph No. 17, relied upon by the
respondents for canvassing their submission, reads
as under :
“17. Sub Section 1A of Section 13 provides that
a person aggrieved by a judgment or order can
file an appeal, however, the said provision is to
be read in conjunction with the proviso which
specifically states that an appeal shall lie only
from orders which are specifically enumerated
under Order XLIII of the CPC. The occurrences
of the expression “shall” and “specifically” in the
proviso has to be noted for correctly
understanding the legislative intent in framing
the scheme of Section 13 of the Act of 2015 . It is
also noteworthy that the order under
challenge in this appeal has been passed by
the learned trial court rejecting the
Application moved by the Defendants under
Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(d) of the CPC.
Such an order is not enumerated in Order
XLIII of the CPC, though Rule 1(a) of Order
XLIII enlists an order passed under Order VII
Rule 10 for returning the plaint. Thus, Order
XLIII enlists the order passed on an
Application under Order VII Rule 10 if it is
allowed; however, it does not enlist the order
in case such an Application is rejected. Order
XLIII also does not enlist any order passed on an
Application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the
CPC.”
[Emphasis supplied]
10
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
19. A bare reading of the above paragraph 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.
20. 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.
21. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove,
the impugned order does not stand to scrutiny and is
hereby quashed and set aside. The appeal preferred
by the appellant-company in the High Court is held
to be maintainable and hence, restored to its file and
original number. The High Court shall consider and
decide the same on merits, in accordance with law.
22. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as
to costs.
11
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 10, 2025.
12
C.A.@ SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025