1 CGHC010206272026 2026:CGHC:32902 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 148 of 2026 1 - Anuj Rana S/o Lt. Rana Brijendra Swaroop Singh Aged About 57 Years Majority Shareholder Of Neelkantham System Private Limited, Deen Dayal Market, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, R/o Rana Bhawan, House No. 3, Indira Market Road, Near D A V School, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Karan Rana S/o Anuj Rana Aged About 29 Years Deen Dayal Market, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh R/o Rana Bhawan, House No. 3, Indira Market Road, Near D A V School, Balco Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioners. Versus 1 - I C I C I Bank Ltd. Branch Manager, I C I C I Bank Limited, Transport Nagar, Korba, Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh 2 - Mesors I C I C I Bank Limited Managing Director, I C I C I Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai Suburban District Mumbai Maharastra 3 - Mesors Indusind Bank Ltd. Managing Director, 2401 General Thimmayya Road (Cantonment), Pune, Taluka And District Pune Maharstra 4 - Mesors Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited P-34a, Gariahat Road (South) Kolkata, West Bengal, Through Its Managing Director 5 - Sundip More, Officer Or Executive Of I C I C Bank Limited Through Managing Director, I C I C I Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, Maharastra 6 - S.K. Sinha General Manager, Messrs Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt Durg Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.01 10:49:38 +0530 2 7 - Messrs Mecon Limited Vivekanand Path, P.O. Doranda, Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioners : Mr. Suryapratap Yuddhveer Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 30/07/2026 Heard. 1. This revision has been filed against the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by learned Second District Judge, Korba in Civil Suit No.04/2025, whereby, application preferred by defendants No.1 and 2 (respondents) under Order 7 Rule 11 was allowed, as a result of which, plaint has been rejected. 2. It is settled legal position that order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC amounts to a decree and same is also defined under Section 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the following terms: “2. (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 he 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;” 3 3. Further, Part VI of the CPC also provides that against the decree only an appeal lies. Even otherwise, Section 115 of the CPC clearly provides that in case where the appeal lies, no revision is maintainable. 4. In the case of Rishabh Chand Jain and Another Vs. Ginesh Chandra Jain [(2016) 6 SCC 675] it has been observed that as the order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC amounts to decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) CPC, remedy of appeal lies against such an order under Section 96 read with Order 41 CPC. 5. Moreover, in the case of Sayyed Ayaz Ali Vs. Prakash G. Goyal [(2021) 7 SCC 456] it has been held that the definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) “shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. Hence, against the order of the trial Court rejecting the plaint, First Appeal would lie under Section 96 of the CPC. 6. In view of the aforesaid settled law, it is explicit that this civil revision is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioners are at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay