- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 34501 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI ANIL REDDY S/O RAJGOPAL REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 2096, 23RD MAIN 16TH CROSS, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J S HALASHETTI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S VIGNESHWARA PROJECTS OFFICE AT NO.901, 1ST FLOOR 1ST CROSS, 1ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560038 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS PARTNER SHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT. 2. M/S. BAIRAVI PROPERTIES AND CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT 1432, 10TH MAIN 6TH CROSS, HAL, 3RD STAGE BENGALURU 560038 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 SRI. BALAJI KRISHNA SWAMY COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. 3. M/S. CORENCE ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO. 295 AND 296 4THFLOOR, UNIT NO.1. 100 FT ROAD INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU-560038 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MRS. SHRUTHI KRUPA COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. 4. M/S. SYNERGY REANCON PVT. LTD., OFFICE AT NO.6C ELIGIN ROAD 4TH FLOOR, ORIENTAL HOUSE KOLKOTA- 700020 REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. DHRUV MODI COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT. 5. SHILPA GOSH D/O MANOJ KUMAR GOSH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT A-404, 4TH FLOOR, A-BLOCK VIGNESHWARA CEDAR WOODS K.NARAYANPURA, K.R. PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU-560077. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4: NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 04.07.2024 IN COM.O.S. 1263/2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LXXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU ON IA. NO.1/2024 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 11(D) OF CPC WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 ANOTHER vs. GINESH CHANDRA JAIN reported in (2016) 6 SCC 675 and judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of NANTU 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: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 “"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.— - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 (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 by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court at the level of District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, Commercial Division of a High Court may appeal to the Commercial Appellate Division of that High Court within a period of sixty days from the date of the judgment or order: Provided that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) as amended by this Act and section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or Letters Patent of a High Court, no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 9. The said provision has been considered by the Calcutta High Court in the case of NANTU LAL DAS (supra). The relevant portion is extracted below: “Section 13 of the 2015 Act, on the other hand, stipulates that any person aggrieved by the judgment or order of a Commercial Court may appeal before the forum as provided in sub-sections (1) and (1A) of Section 13. However, it is contended that the proviso to sub-section (1A) clearly enumerates that an appeal shall lie from such orders passed by a Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. As such, it is argued that a dispute may crop up if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner before the competent forum as regards the maintainability of such appeal in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the 2015 Act. Although there is sufficient scope of confusion over the matter, which might have led to the filing of the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a complete reading of the entire scheme of the 2015 Act makes it clear that the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 A conjoint reading of Sections 8 and 13 of the 2015 Act clearly indicates that there is a bar against revision or petition against interlocutory orders of a Commercial Court, although there is substance in the argument that such bar may not be applicable to a constitutional remedy such as Article 227 of the Constitution of India, since the 2015 Act is a subordinate legislation under the aegis of the Constitution. The question, which arises next, is, whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order simpliciter or a judgement as contemplated in Section 13(1) of the 2015 Act. The proviso to sub-section (1A) of the 2015 Act clearly indicates a clarification that orders which are appealable under Order XLIII of the Code shall also be appealable under the 2015 Act. Section 16 also holds the key to the interpretation to the question which has arisen herein. Sub-Section (1) of Section 16 of the 2015 Act stipulates that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule. It is noteworthy that the Schedule does not mention any amendment to Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 section stands in its original form despite the introduction of the 2015 Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the 2015 Act further clarifies that the Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by that Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a specified value. The above provisions clearly indicate that an order of rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order, since it is a deemed decree under Section 2 of the Code, which remains unamended by the 2015 Act, but is a "judgment' as contemplated in Section 13(1) of the 2015 Act. The proviso to Section 13(1A) does not restrict the right of appeal only to orders which are appealable under Order XLIII of the Code, which interpretation will be absurd since in that event, decrees passed by Commercial Courts can also not be appealable. Keeping in view the cumulative interpretation of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that an order of rejection of plaint is neither an interlocutory order as envisaged in Section 8 of the 2015 Act, nor an order as contemplated under Order XLIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 However, no confusion can arise as regards such an order of rejection of plaint being a decree as contemplated within the definition of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which remains unamended by the 2015 Act. Hence there cannot be any doubt that Section 13(1) and 13(1A) as well as Section 16 of the 2015 Act are applicable as an order of rejection of a plaint is a deemed decree and hence a "judgment" as contemplated in the said sub-sections of Section 13 of the 2015 Act. Thus, such an order is appealable before the competent forum as contemplated in Section 13 of the Act of 2015.” 10. In view of the above, it is very clear that against the rejection of the plaint, in a Commercial Suit, an appeal lies to Commercial Division of the High Court. The writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate legal forum. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12189 WP No. 34501 of 2024 In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31