IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Rejection of plaint – Order rejecting plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC decides lis finally and would tantamount to a decree within meaning of Section 2(2) CPC.
(2) Construction of Proviso – Proviso, operating as an exception, must be construed harmoniously with main provision and not in derogation thereof.

JUDGMENT

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 17th February, 2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay [Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] in Commercial First Appeal No. 8 of 2023, arising out of Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021, whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal preferred by MITC Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. [Hereinafter, referred to as the “appellant-company”.], through its authorized officer Shri Dinkar Trimbak Kajale, as a non-suit simpliciter, holding the same to be non-maintainable under Section 13(1A) of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 [For short, ‘CCA, 2015’].

4. The facts relevant and essential for the adjudication of the present appeal are mentioned hereinbelow.

5. The appellant-company instituted Commercial Suit No. 06 of 2021 before the Court of District Judge, Nashik [Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.] seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,64,60,528/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Twenty Eight Only) towards principal and Rs.87,78,300/- (Rupees Eighty Seven Lakhs Seventy-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Only) towards interest, aggregating to Rs.2,52,38,828/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty-Two Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Eight Only), alleging that the respondents failed to make payment for the supply of TMT/Fe-500 material effected by the appellant-company.

6. Upon appearance, the respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, [For short, ‘CPC’.] seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the appellant-company had not undertaken the mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement (PIMS) as contemplated under Section 12A of the CCA, 2015. The trial Court accepted the said application and rejected the plaint vide order dated 10th November, 2022. At this stage, the detailed factual matrix concerning the filing of an interim application by the appellant-company for urgent interim reliefs along with the suit, the prayer for exemption from pre-institution mediation, and the aspect of non-consideration of the same is not being adverted to.

7. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the plaint, the appellant-company preferred an appeal under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, before the High Court, raising various grounds for consideration. The High Court, however, proceeded to dismiss the appeal as not maintainable, holding that an order rejecting the plaint does not fall within the ambit of Order XLIII of CPC, and therefore, such a challenge could not be maintained under Section 13(1A) of the CCA, 2015, read with the proviso appended thereto. The order passed by the High Court is under challenge in the present proceedings by way of special leave.

8. To buttress the contention questioning the legality of the impugned order, Shri Jay Savla, learned senior counsel representing the appellant- company, referred to Section 2(2) of the CPC, which reads as below: -

“(2) “decree” means the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final. It shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint and the determination of any question within section 144, but shall not include

(a) any adjudication from which an appeal lies as an appeal from an order, or

(b) any order of dismissal for default.”

9. Learned senior counsel fervently urged that the expression ‘decree’ means a formal expr