Legal Review and Analysis of MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited & Anr vs Ms Renuka Realtors & Ors 2025 INSC 1300

In-Short

Case: MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s. Renuka Realtors & Ors. (2025 INSC 1300)An order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is a decree and is appealable under the main provision of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and not hit by the proviso restricting appeals against interlocutory orders.

1. Heading of the Judgment

MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited & Anr. vs. M/s. Renuka Realtors & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1300 (Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025, Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 10428 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta

2. Related Laws and Sections

This judgment interprets the interplay between the following statutes:

• Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CCA, 2015):
  Section 13(1A): Governs appeals from judgments and orders of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC):
  Section 2(2): Defines a "decree," explicitly including "the rejection of a plaint."
  Order VII Rule 11: Provides the grounds for the rejection of a plaint.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties:
  Appellants: MITC Rolling Mills Private Limited (the original plaintiff, a company that supplied goods).
  Respondents: M/s. Renuka Realtors & Ors. (the original defendants, who failed to make payments).

• Subject Matter: A commercial suit for recovery of money amounting to over Rs. 2.5 crores.

• Procedural History:
  Trial Court (Commercial Court, Nashik): Allowed the defendant's application and rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for non-compliance with the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) under Section 12A of the CCA, 2015.
  High Court (Bombay): Dismissed the plaintiff's appeal as non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015.
  Supreme Court: Heard the appeal by special leave against the High Court's order.

4. Core Principles and Analysis of the Judgment

The Supreme Court's judgment centers on a critical question of legal procedure concerning the right to appeal in commercial disputes.

A. The Central Legal Question: Appealability of an Order Rejecting a Plaint

The Issue: Whether an order passed by a Commercial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, which results in the rejection of a plaint, is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Conflicting Interpretations:

• The Appellant's Contention (MITC Rolling Mills): An order rejecting a plaint is deemed a "decree" under Section 2(2) of the CPC. Therefore, an appeal against it is maintainable under the main part of Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, which allows appeals against "judgments" or "orders" of a Commercial Court.

• The Respondent's Contention (Renuka Realtors): The proviso to Section 13(1A) restricts appeals against "orders" only to those specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC. Since an order rejecting a plaint is not listed in Order XLIII, no appeal lies. They relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works.

B. The Supreme Court's Analysis and Ruling

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. The Court's reasoning was based on a harmonious and textual interpretation of the statute.

• Order Rejecting a Plaint is a "Decree": The Court firmly reiterated the settled legal position, citing its own precedent in Shamsher Singh v. Rajinder Prashad (1973). It held that an order under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which finally decides the suit, conclusively determines the rights of the parties and is expressly deemed to be a "decree" under Section 2(2) of the CPC.

• Dichotomy in Section 13(1A): The Court performed a key structural analysis of Section 13(1A). It identified two distinct parts:
  The Main Provision: This allows an appeal against a "judgment or order" of a Commercial Court. The Court held that a "decree" (which includes an order rejecting a plaint) falls within the ambit of this main provision. The term "order" in the main provision is of wide import.
  The Proviso: This acts as an exception to the main provision. It states that an appeal shall lie from "such orders" that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the CPC. The Court clarified that the proviso is meant to restrict appeals against interlocutory orders (interim orders) only to those listed in Order XLIII.

• Distinguishing the Precedent: The Court distinguished the case of Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works. It clarified that in the Bank of India case, the order under challenge was one rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 11. Such an order is interlocutory and not a decree. Since it is not listed in Order XLIII, it was rightly held to be non-appealable. However, the present case involved the actual rejection of the plaint, which is a final decree. This fundamental distinction made the Bank of India precedent inapplicable.

• Remedy for an Aggrieved Plaintiff: The Court emphasized that a plaintiff whose plaint is rejected cannot be left without a remedy or be compelled to file a fresh suit. Denying an appeal would cause a grave miscarriage of justice.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by MITC Rolling Mills.

The Court issued the following final directions:

1. The impugned order of the High Court was quashed and set aside.

2. The appeal filed by the appellant-company before the High Court was held to be maintainable.

3. The appeal was restored to the file of the Bombay High Court.

4. The High Court was directed to hear and decide the appeal on its merits, in accordance with the law.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

Question 1 As per the Supreme Court's judgment in MITC Rolling Mills vs. Renuka Realtors, what is the legal status of an order that rejects a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC?
a) It is an interlocutory order.
b) It is a decree.
c) It is a reviewable administrative order.
d) It is only challengeable through a writ petition.

Question 2 The Supreme Court held that an appeal against an order rejecting a plaint in a commercial suit is maintainable under which part of Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
a) Under the proviso, which references Order XLIII of the CPC.
b) Under the main provision, which allows appeals against judgments and orders.
c) Only if special leave is granted by the Supreme Court.
d) It is not appealable under any circumstance.