NEW DELHI - In a detailed judgment delivered on Monday, the Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that had dismissed an appeal filed by MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd., ruling that an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code is indeed appealable. The bench, led by Justice Sandeep Mehta with Justice Vikram Nath concurring, took a firm view that litigants cannot be left 'remediless' when their plaint is thrown out at the threshold.
Background
The dispute began when the appellant-company approached the Nashik District Commercial Court seeking recovery of over ₹2.52 crore for the supply of TMT/Fe-500 materials allegedly not paid for by Renuka Realtors and others. The respondents immediately countered, filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was non-maintainable because MITC Rolling Mills had not completed the mandatory pre-institution mediation (a step required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015).
The trial court accepted the objection and rejected the plaint, prompting the company to approach the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Act. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal altogether, stating that such an appeal was not maintainable since rejection of a plaint was not listed among appealable orders under Order XLIII of the CPC.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court took an entirely different view, reasoning that a rejection of plaint is not some side procedural order it is a decree. Justice Mehta, reading from Section 2(2) of the CPC, highlighted that 'rejection of a plaint' is explicitly deemed to be a decree. He added that such a rejection conclusively determines the rights of parties, at least at that level of litigation.
The bench observed, "Where the language of the main provision is plain and unambiguous, the proviso cannot be invoked to curtail or whittle down its scope."
This was aimed squarely at the High Court’s interpretation. The Supreme Court clarified that the proviso to Section 13(1A) which limits appeals against certain orders only to those enumerated under Order XLIII applies only to interlocutory orders, not to decrees.
The Court also addressed a critical precedent relied upon by the respondents: Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works. According to the bench, the High Court’s reliance on this case was misplaced because that judgment involved rejection of applications under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11(d), which do not amount to decrees.
"The ratio of that case has no applicability to the present situation," Justice Mehta noted while differentiating the factual matrix.
Decision
Bringing clarity to a widely debated point in commercial litigation, the Supreme Court ruled that an appeal against an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 is indeed maintainable before the High Court. The bench was categorical:
"The plaintiff who is aggrieved of the order rejecting the plaint… cannot be left remediless."
With that, the Court quashed the Bombay High Court order and restored the appeal to the High Court’s docket. It directed the High Court to decide the case on merits, in accordance with law, without any further delay. No costs were imposed.
Case Details:- MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Renuka Realtors & Ors.