Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-013514-013514 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 17881/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Commercial Courts and their Appellate Divisions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Overrules the High Court’s finding of non-maintainability under Section 13(1A) CCA |
| Type of Law | Civil procedure — Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 |
| Questions of Law | Whether an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a “decree” within Section 2(2) CPC and thereby appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) CPC expressly includes the rejection of a plaint; such an order conclusively determines the lis and thus falls within the term “decree.” Section 13(1A) CCA allows appeals against any judgment or order of a Commercial Court, and the proviso only restricts certain interlocutory orders, not final decrees. Hence, rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is appealable. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant filed a Commercial Suit for recovery of ₹2.52 crore; respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to undertake pre-institution mediation; the trial Court rejected the plaint; the High Court dismissed the ensuing appeal as non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) CCA; the Special Leave Petition challenged that non-maintainability ruling. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All Commercial Courts and their Appellate Divisions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering appealability of plaint-rejection orders |
| Overrules | High Court of Bombay’s decision in Commercial First Appeal No. 8 of 2023 |
| Distinguishes | Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2667) |
| Follows | Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad, (1973) 2 SCC 524 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC and conclusively decides the lis.
- Section 13(1A) CCA’s main provision covers appeals against all judgments and orders; its proviso only limits interlocutory orders so specified.
- A party aggrieved by plaint-rejection need not file a fresh suit or invoke revision under Article 227; it can directly appeal under Section 13(1A) CCA.
- High Courts and Commercial Appellate Divisions must hear such appeals on merit rather than dismissing for non-enumeration in Order XLIII CPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 2(2) CPC defines “decree” to include the rejection of a plaint and excludes only certain orders (appeals or dismissals for default).
- An Order VII Rule 11 CPC plaint-rejection is a final adjudication deciding rights and thus a decree.
- Section 13(1A) CCA broadly permits appeals against judgments or orders of Commercial Courts; its proviso restricts only those interlocutory orders specifically listed in Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act.
- The proviso must not be read to curtail the main provision’s scope where its language is plain.
- Shamsher Singh confirms that Order VII Rule 11 rejections are decrees and appealable.
- Bank of India is distinguishable as it dealt with rejection of interlocutory applications under Order VII Rules 10/11(d), which are not final decrees enumerated in Order XLIII CPC.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The term “decree” under Section 2(2) CPC includes plaint-rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
- Section 13(1A) CCA allows appeal against any judgment or order, including this decree.
- High Court erred in holding the appeal non-maintainable.
Respondent
- Bank of India decision holds only those orders specified in Order XLIII CPC are appealable under Section 13(1A) CCA.
- Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 is not so enumerated and thus non-appealable under Section 13(1A).
Factual Background
The appellant-company sued for recovery of over ₹2.5 crore for supply of TMT material. The respondents applied under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the plaint for failure to undertake pre-institution mediation under Section 12A CCA. The trial Court rejected the plaint on 10 November 2022. The High Court dismissed the ensuing appeal under Section 13(1A) CCA as non-maintainable. The Supreme Court granted leave, quashed the High Court order, and restored the appeal for adjudication on merits.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 2(2) CPC: “Decree” includes rejection of plaint; excludes only orders from which appeals lie as appeals or dismissals for default.
- Order VII Rule 11 CPC: Empowers trial Court to reject plaint for defect in substance.
- Section 13(1A) CCA, 2015: Permits appeals against judgments or orders of Commercial Courts to the High Court within sixty days; proviso limits appeals only against those interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act.
- Order XLIII CPC: Enumerates certain appeals but does not include plaint-rejection under Order VII Rule 11.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinction from Bank of India & Ors v. M/s Maruti Civil Works