The Supreme Court has clarified the appellate framework under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, holding that an order rejecting a plaint amounts to a decree and is thus appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Act.

However, an order refusing to reject a plaint does not attract an appeal and can only be challenged by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution or through revision proceedings.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered the ruling on November 10, 2025, while setting aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment which had dismissed a plaintiff’s appeal as non-maintainable.

Facts of the Case

The appellant company, MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., had instituted a commercial recovery suit of over ₹2.5 crore against M/s Renuka Realtors. The defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, asserting that the plaintiff failed to undergo Pre-Institution Mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Trial Court accepted the objection and rejected the plaint. When the plaintiff appealed under Section 13(1A), the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal, holding it to be non-maintainable since such an order is not enumerated under Order XLIII CPC.

Supreme Court’s Observations

Justice Mehta, authoring the judgment, emphasized that Section 13(1A) must be read harmoniously. While the proviso restricts appeals only against interlocutory orders specified in Order XLIII CPC, the main provision allows appeals from any judgment or order of a Commercial Court.

The Court held that an order rejecting a plaint conclusively determines rights of the parties, hence qualifies as a decree under Section 2(2) CPC. Such an order squarely fits within the main part of Section 13(1A) and remains appealable.

Conversely, an order refusing to reject a plaint is interlocutory in nature and not a decree, making it non-appealable. Such an order can only be tested via Article 227 or a civil revision.

Court’s Distinction from Prior Ruling

The Bench distinguished the Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works (2023) decision, clarifying that in that case, the order challenged was refusing to reject or return a plaint, which is interlocutory. Therefore, that precedent did not apply to cases where the plaint itself was rejected.

The Court categorically noted:

“An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC results in a decree and is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, whereas an order refusing such rejection is not.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the plaintiff’s case before the Bombay High Court for consideration on merits. The decision settles an important procedural ambiguity concerning the Commercial Courts Act Rejection of Plaint Appealable question, reinforcing that while final orders rejecting plaints are appealable, refusals to reject must be pursued through supervisory or revisional remedies.

Case Details

• Cause Title: MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Renuka Realtors & Ors.
• Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Date of Judgment: 10 November 2025

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…