Case Note & Summary
The High Court dismissed a commercial appeal filed against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of plaint on grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as the impugned order was not enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that the proviso to Section 13(1A) limits appeals to specified orders, and an order under Order VII Rule 10 does not fall within this category. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
The appellant filed a commercial appeal impugning an order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru [commercial court] in I.A.No.12 in Commercial O.S.No.336/2022 -- The appellant, arrayed as defendant in the suit, had filed the application under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) contending that the commercial court lacked jurisdiction -- The application was dismissed with costs -- The High Court considered the maintainability of the appeal under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (CC Act) -- The proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 13 of CC Act stipulates that appeal lies only against orders specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC as amended by CC Act -- An order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is not covered under Order XLIII of CPC -- The Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. OCI Corporation & Anr. held that scope of appeal under Section 13(1) of CC Act is controlled by the proviso -- The proviso carves out an exception to the main provision and must be construed harmoniously -- The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the commercial appeal as not maintainable, upholding the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the commercial court, with no order as to costs
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 27
Commercial Appeal No. 195 of 2024
Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice, C.M. Poonacha, Justice
Sri Abhinav Ramanand A., Advocate for appellant, Smt. Revathi Adinath Narde, Advocate for respondent
Trinetramilan Product Protection Solutions Private Limited
A.S. Narayanan, Proprietor of M/s. Milan Packaging
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Commercial dispute involving a suit for unspecified relief
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside order dismissing application for return of plaint and sought return of plaint
Filing Reason
Appellant contended commercial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute
Previous Decisions
Commercial court dismissed I.A.No.12 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC with costs on 11.03.2024
Issues
Whether an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued appeal is maintainable as impugned order has trappings of finality and constitutes a judgment under amended Section 13 of CC Act -- Appellant contended writ petition under Article 226 or 227 is not apposite remedy due to legislative intent for expeditious resolution and limited scope of factual examination
Ratio Decidendi
Appeal under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is limited to orders enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC as per proviso to Sub-section (1A) -- Order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is not covered under Order XLIII of CPC -- Supreme Court precedent in Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. OCI Corporation & Anr. governs that proviso controls scope of appeal and must be construed harmoniously with main enactment
Judgment Excerpts
The question to be considered at the threshold is whether an appeal against an order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is maintainable, in view of Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [CC Act] -- The proviso to Sub-section (1A) of Section 13 of the CC Act provides that the appeal would lie against the orders passed by the Commercial Division or a Commercial Court that are specifically enumerated under Order XLIII of CPC as amended by the CC Act -- There is no dispute that an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is not an order which is covered under Order XLIII of CPC -- In our view, the question of whether an appeal lies against a commercial court’s order that is not enumerated in Order XLIII of the CPC is no longer res integra. The same is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Kandla Export Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. OCI Corporation & Anr.
Procedural History
Commercial O.S.No.336/2022 filed in commercial court -- Appellant filed I.A.No.12 under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC seeking return of plaint -- Commercial court dismissed I.A.No.12 with costs on 11.03.2024 -- Appellant filed Commercial Appeal No. 195 of 2024 under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC -- High Court heard appeal and delivered judgment on 29.01.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
