The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, particularly in facilitating mediation and ensuring due progress of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 25.08.2022 and 28.03.2023 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court)-02, South-East District, Saket, Delhi (`Trial Court') in the Civil Suit bearing no. 1332/2018, titled as "M/S SRM Education & Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Jai Pal Singh Sharma Trust".

1.1. The Petitioner is the original defendant and the Respondent is original plaintiff in the civil suit.

1.2. The Trial Court vide order dated 25.08.2022 permitted the Respondent to explore the pre-institution mediation in terms of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ("Commercial Court Act' or `Act of 2015').

1.3. The Trial Court vide order dated 28.03.2023 permitted the Respondent to amend its original plaint dated 04.09.2018 so as to comply with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC') as amended by the Act of 2015. The Respondent was permitted to file the Statement of Truth under Order 6 Rule 15 A and file a declaration of oath under Order 11 Rule 1 (3) CPC as amended by the Act of 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that though the said suit bearing No. 1332/2018 was initially instituted as an ordinary civil suit however the matter was transferred by the then Trial Court to the District Judge for assigning the same to the concerned Commercial Court vide order dated 16.08.2022.

2.1. He states that in the written statement filed on 18.01.2019 by the Petitioner herein a preliminary objection has been raised at paragraph 2 that the mandate of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act has not been complied with by the Respondent before instituting the said suit and therefore the suit is not maintainable.

2.2. He states that concerned Commercial Court vide impugned order dated 25.08.2022 erred in granting liberty to the Respondent to explore mediation. He states that the Trial Court could not have permitted the Petitioner to initiate mediation during the pendency of the suit. He states that the said defect cannot be cured and relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s Patil Automation Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1. He states that the suit ought to have been dismissed for the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement.

2.3. He states that the Respondent herein on 12.11.2022 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 of CPC seeking permission to sign each page of the plaint to bring in conformity with the provisions of Commercial Courts Act. He states that the proposed amended plaint was duly accompanied by a statement of truth, the non-starter report of the mediation centre from Saket and an affidavit in terms of the order 11 Rule 1 (3) of the Code as amended by the Act of 2015.

2.4. He states that the Trial Court erred in allowing the said application vide impugned order dated 28.03.2023. He states that the Trial Court could not have permitted the said amendment to the plaint or permitted the Respondent to cure the defects in the plaint in view of the objection raised by the Petitioner herein with regards to preliminary objection no.2 and since the application of the Respondent as well does not specifically seek permission to file the statement of truth or the declaration.

2.5. He also places reliance on the order dated 22.09.2018 initially passed in the proceedings of the said suit wherein the Civil Court had observed that an ordinary civil suit is not maintainable with regards to the facts of the present case and the suit should be filed as a commercial suit. He states therefore the Respondent had due notice as regards to the non-maintainability of the plaint as an ordinary suit as early as on 22.09.2018.

3. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and peruse the record.

Challenge to the order dated 25.08.2022

4. This Court is of the opinion that there has been no finding returned by th