Urgent interim relief must be substantively justified by the plaintiff's pleadings; merely seeking such relief does not bypass mandatory compliance with pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A.

ORDER :

Gauri Godse, J.

Interim Application No. 5492 of 2025 and

Interim Application No. 5975 of 2025

1. Interim Application No. 5492 of 2025 by defendant no. 5, and Interim Application No. 5975 of 2025 by defendant no. 13 are filed praying for rejection of the plaint under clause (d) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”). Objection raised by these defendants for rejection of the plaint is non-compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“the said Act”).

2. The suit is filed for specific performance of the redevelopment agreements executed by the plaintiff with defendant no. 1-society, and some of their members, for the redevelopment of the society building. The plaintiff has also prayed for damages/penalty for the alleged non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the redevelopment agreements, which are the subject matter of the suit.

3. The interim application is filed by the plaintiff seeking interim relief of a mandatory injunction for directing defendant nos.. 2 to 37 to execute and register the Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (“PAAA”) with respect to their entitlement and further directions to immediately vacate their respective premises and hand them over for the purpose of redevelopment. The plaintiff has also prayed for the appointment of a Court Receiver to take over possession and hand it over to the plaintiff for the purpose of taking steps for the redevelopment of the society building as per the terms and conditions of the redevelopment agreements, which are the subject matter of the suit.

4. Defendant nos. 5 and 13 have raised an objection that the suit does not contemplate any urgent interim relief and thus the plaint deserves to be rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 12A of the said Act. Learned counsel for defendant no. 5 referred to the list of documents annexed to the plaint with reference to the redevelopment agreements executed in favour of the plaintiff. He submitted that the last agreement, as per the list of documents, is dated 19^th September 2024. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint is based on the correspondence between the plaintiff and the society for seeking a mandatory injunction for vacating the respective premises by the defendants. Hence, according to the learned counsel for defendant no. 5, the suit filed in August 2025 seeking specific performance of the redevelopment agreements does not contemplate any urgent interim relief that would entitle the plaintiff to seek a waiver of compliance with the mandatory provision under Section 12A of the said Act.

5. Learned counsel for defendant no. 13 referred to the relevant paragraphs in the plaint and, in particular, paragraph 3.41. According to the learned counsel for defendant no. 13, the contention raised in the plaint for seeking urgent reliefs for vacating the premises by the defendants would not amount to any urgent relief for not following the mandatory provision under Section 12A of the said Act. He points out the redevelopment agreements and submits that the redevelopment agreements are executed between the plaintiff, the society, and some of the members who have signed them. Even as per the averments in the plaint, the plaintiff states that the redevelopment was contemplated since 2012, and that the redevelopment agreement and the supplementary redevelopment agreement were executed in 2024.

6. Learned counsel for defendant no. 13 submitted that the supplement