Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD, J
Anil Reddy S/o Rajgopal Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Vigneshwara Projects – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 34501 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. J S HALASHETTI.,ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
A writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against the rejection of a plaint, which is deemed a decree and appealable under the Commercial Courts Act.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 2(2), 13, and Order 7 Rule 11 - Writ petition challenging rejection of plaint in Commercial Court - Court held that rejection of plaint is a deemed decree and appeal lies to the Commercial Division of the High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Writ petition not maintainable. (Paras 1, 10)
(B) Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court emphasized that a writ petition under Article 227 is not maintainable against an order of rejection of plaint, which is appealable under the Commercial Courts Act. (Paras 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of money, which was rejected by the Commercial Court as barred by limitation. The plaintiff challenged this order through a writ petition. (Paras 5, 10)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the order rejecting the plaint is a deemed decree and thus appealable under the Commercial Courts Act. (Paras 10)
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable against the rejection of the plaint. (Paras 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of a plaint constitutes a deemed decree under Section 2 of CPC, making it appealable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, thus rendering the writ petition not maintainable. (Paras 10)
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 04.07.2024 passed on IA No.1/2024 in Com.O.S.No.1263/2023 by the LXXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the application filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 has been allowed and the plaint has been rejected.
2. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition. He contended that, against the rejection of the plaint, the plaintiff has to file an appeal before the Appellate Court under the Commercial Courts Act.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that under Section 13 of CPC, the appeal lies to the Commercial Division of the High Court only against the judgment or order of the Commercial Court. The order passed on IA filed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC, is not a decree as defined under Section 2 of CPC. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents herein is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Cou rt in the case of KANDLA EXPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs. OCI CORPORATION AND ANOTHER reported in(2018) 14 SCC 715 and contended that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is for rejection of the plaint. The application was allowed and the plaint was rejected. This is an appeallable decree. Even under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, the appeal lies to the Commercial Division of the High Court. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RISHABH CHAND JAIN AND ANOTHER vs. GINESH CHANDRA JAIN reported in (2016) 6 SCC 675 and judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case ofNANTU LAL DAS vs. ANJALI ESTATES AND DEVEOPERS AND ANOTHER. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of money in the Commercial Court at Bengaluru in Com.O.S.No.1263/2023. On service of summons, the defendants appeared through the counsel and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) r/w. Section 151 of CPC, seeking for rejection of the plaint. By the impugned order dated 04.07.2024, the application was allowed, the plaint of the plaintiff was rejected as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed this writ petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Section 2(2) of CPC defines the decree. The same is extracted below:
“"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.
Explanation: A decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can be completely disposed of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit. It may be partly preliminary and partly final”
7. From a reading of the above provision, it is very clear that the rejection of the plaint is a deemed decree.
8. Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 provides for appeals from decrees of the Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions. The same is extracted below:
“ 13. Appeals from decrees of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions.—
(1) 1[Any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court below the level of a District Judge may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Court within a period of sixty days from the date of judgment or order.
(1A) Any person aggrieved
