Urgent interim relief must be justified by clear pleadings indicating its necessity, assessed holistically from the plaintiff's perspective, in line with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

GAURI GODSE, J.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

1. This application is filed by the defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), praying to reject the plaint under clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that the suit filed without following the mandatory requirement under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘said Act’) deserves to be rejected. It is the objection on behalf of the defendant that the suit does not contemplate any urgent interim relief. Thus, in view of the well-settled legal principles, the plaint deserves to be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A of the said Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:

2. Learned senior counsel for the defendant relies upon the relevant paragraphs in the plaint and submits that the redevelopment agreement in favour of the plaintiff was terminated by legal notice dated 1^st April 2025. The suit to challenge the termination is filed on 10^th July 2025. The plaint does not reveal that, according to the plaintiff, any urgent interim relief is contemplated. Even the interim application seeking urgent relief was filed only on 1^st August 2025. According to the plaintiff, if any urgent interim relief was contemplated, the plaint should have contained the relevant averments justifying the reason for not complying with the mandatory provisions under Section 12A and the reasons for seeking urgent interim relief. He submits that if the relevant paragraphs of the plaint are seen, the plaint does not contain the pleadings that any urgent interim relief is contemplated in the suit. Though there is a prayer for interim relief in the suit, there are no averments as to the reason for seeking urgent interim relief.

3. To support his submissions, learned senior counsel for the defendant relied upon the wording of section 12A. He submits that the suit that does not contemplate any urgent interim relief cannot be instituted. It is a well-settled legal principle that compliance under Section 12A is mandatory. Thus, the plaint must contain relevant pleadings that the urgent interim relief is contemplated. As per well- settled legal principles, the plaint must set out the reasons for non- compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 12A. He thus submits that based on the averments in the plaint and the supporting documents, the courts have to ascertain whether any urgent interim relief is contemplated according to the plaintiff for not complying with the mandatory provision of Section 12A. None of the paragraphs in the plaint contain any such averments that urgent interim relief is required. He relies upon the decision of this court in the case of Lakhani Realty LLP Vs. Kalina Vihar Darshan Co- operative Housing Society and Others, Interim Application No. 24924 of 2025 dated 15^th October 2025 and submits that this court, by relying upon the legal principles in the decision of Patil Automation Private Limited and Others Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1, Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129 has taken a view that the plaint and the supporting documents should reveal that urgent interim relief is contemplated. He relied upon paragraph no. 25 of the judgment to support his submissions that the suit contemplates urgent interim relief, would mean that the plaint and documents should show and indicate the need for urgent interim relief. In the present case, the plaint is bereft of any averment that any urgent interim relief was contemplated, even according to