MITC ROLLING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR.versusM/S RENUKA REALTORS AND ORS.

                [2025] 11 S.C.R. 531 : 2025 INSC 1300

            MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr.
                                 v.
                 M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 13514 of 2025)
                             10 November 2025
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Whether an order rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 of the CPC is
       appealable u/s.13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

                                 Headnotes†
       Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil
       Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11; s.2(2) – Appellant filed
       Commercial Suit for recovery of Rs.2.5 Crores – Respondents
       sought rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant
       had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation
       and Settlement as contemplated under the CC Act – Plaint
       rejected by trial Court – Appellant filed appeal u/s.13(1A) –
       Dismissed by High Court as non-maintainable holding that
       an order rejecting the plaint does not fall within the ambit
       of Or.XLIII, CPC, and therefore, such a challenge could not
       be maintained u/s.13(1A) r/w the proviso – Interference with:
       Held: Impugned order quashed and set aside – An order
       rejecting the plaint u/Or.VII r.11 CPC decides the lis finally and
       is a decree within the meaning of s.2(2) CPC – 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
       Division of a High Court would ordinarily be appealable before the
       High Court u/s.13(1A) r/w the applicable provisions of the CPC –
       The main provision of s.13(1A) contemplates appeals against
       ‘judgments’ and ‘orders’ of the 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


* Author
532                                                            [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       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
       u/Or.XLIII CPC and s.37, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 –
       Thus, 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 – Appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court is
       maintainable, restored. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 21]
       Interpretation of Statutes – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 –
       Proviso to s.13(1A) – Interpretation – Code of Civil Procedure,
       1908. [Para 17]

       Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – s.13(1A) – Code of Civil
       Procedure, 1908 – Or.VII r.11 – Respondents contended 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 in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works:
       Held: The ratio in Bank of India has no applicability to the present
       situation – The said case involved a challenge to an order rejecting
       application(s) u/Or.VII r.10 and Or.VII r.11(d) of the CPC, which
       order(s) are not enumerated u/Or.XLIII of the CPC – Thus, such
       an order would not be amenable to an appeal u/s.13(1A) of the
       CCA, 2015, and rather, can be challenged by filing a revision or
       a petition/application u/Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as
       the case may be. [Para 18]

                                Case Law Cited
       Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works, SLP(C) 6039 of
       2024; Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad [1974] 1 SCR 322 :
       (1973) 2 SCC 524 – referred to.
       Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom
       2667 – distinguished.

                                  List of Acts
       Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
       Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Constitution of India.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                            533

                   MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v.
                         M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.

                                          List of Keywords
       Section 13(1A), Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Order VII Rule 11 of
       the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Order rejecting the plaint under
       Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is appealable under Section 13(1A) of
       Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Rejection of the plaint; Commercial
       Suit for recovery; Plaint rejected; Decree; Decree within Section
       2(2), CPC; Or.XLIII, CPC; Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and
       Settlement (PIMS).

                                        Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13514
       of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2025 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Bombay in CFA No. 8 of 2023

                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Jay Savla, Sr. Adv., Amol Doijode, Prabhat Chaurasia, Anirudh
       Jamwal, Ms. Kenisha Savla, Aditya Bajaj, M/s Mps Legal.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Sukumar P. Joshi, Sr. Adv., Bhaskar Nayak, Ms. Raina Anand.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                               Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
       dated 17th February, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature
       at Bombay1 in Commercial First Appeal No. 8 of 2023, arising out of
       Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021, whereby the High Court disposed



1    Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.
534                                                          [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                                      Supreme Court Reports


       of the appeal preferred by MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd.2, through its
       authorized officer Shri Dinkar Trimbak Kajale, as a non-suit simpliciter,
       holding the same to be non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) of
       the Commercial Courts Act, 20153.
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, Nashik4 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 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 Civil Procedure, 1908,5 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
       vide order dated 10th 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 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


2    Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-company”.
3    For short, ‘CCA, 2015’.
4    Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.
5    For short, ‘CPC’.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                             535

                MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v.
                      M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.

      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.”
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. Per contra, learned senior counsel Shri 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 in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil
    Works6, which a three-Judge Bench of this Court has affirmed vide



6    2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667.
536                                                                      [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


       order7 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 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. Rajinder Prashad8, 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]



7   Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works, SLP(C) 6039 of 2024.
8   (1973) 2 SCC 524.
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                          537

              MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v.
                    M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.

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 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
    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
538                                                         [2025] 11 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


       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) 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]

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,
[2025] 11 S.C.R.                                                       539

                MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited and Anr. v.
                      M/s Renuka Realtors and Ors.

     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.
23. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey