In a significant clarification on the contours of appellate jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Supreme Court has drawn a clear line between what can and cannot be appealed when it comes to the rejection of plaints.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta ruled that an order allowing the rejection of a plaint qualifies as a decree, making it appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Act. However, when a court refuses to reject a plaint, that order does not attract the same appellate remedy and must instead be challenged through a revision or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
The judgment came in an appeal against a Bombay High Court decision that had dismissed a plaintiff’s challenge to the rejection of its commercial suit worth over ₹2.5 crore. The High Court had held that such an appeal was not maintainable, reasoning that an order rejecting a plaint was not among the orders listed in Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 13(1A) must be read as a cohesive whole—the main provision permits appeals against “judgments or orders,” while the proviso restricts appeals only in relation to interlocutory orders under Order XLIII. It observed that the proviso cannot override or shrink the main provision, especially when the order in question amounts to a decree.
Justice Mehta, writing for the Bench, noted that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC ends the suit and therefore assumes the character of a decree. By contrast, an order merely refusing to reject a plaint—such as one passed under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d)—is interlocutory in nature and cannot be appealed unless specifically provided for under Order XLIII.
The Court distinguished its view from the Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works decision of the Bombay High Court, pointing out that in that case, the impugned order had only refused to reject the plaint and therefore did not amount to a decree.
Reinstating the appellant’s right to appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s order and restored the appeal to its original number.