IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Commercial Courts Act, specifically in determining the nature of the dispute and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to exemption from pre-litigation mediation.

JUDGMENT

Anup Jairam Bhambhani J.

1. The present suit has been filed as an ordinary civil suit.

2. Vide last order dated 29.02.2024, Mr. Siddharth Yadav, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiffs was queried as to why the present suit should not be treated as a `commercial suit, under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 (`Commercial Courts Act.), since the claims made by way of the suit appear to arise from a partnership agreement. Mr. Yadav was heard in the matter on 29.02.2024; and had sought further time to cite certain judicial precedents.

3. Mr. Yadav argues that the suit is maintainable as an ordinary civil suit.

4. It is the submission of learned senior counsel, that the subject matter of the present suit are the sale proceeds of property bearing No.249-A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram, Haryana which property was at one stage property of the partnership firm. He submits however, that once the sale proceeds were credited to the personal account of the plaintiffs' father/husband (who was one of the partners of the partnership firm), the character of the funds changed, and it can no longer be said that the funds relate to the partnership firm or that the claims have arisen from a partnership agreement. These funds, it is argued, became the personal money of the plaintiffs' father/husband; and that since by way of the present suit the plaintiffs are seeking recovery of those funds from the defendants alongwith damages arising therefrom, the dispute in question is not `a dispute arising out of a partnership agreement, within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act.

5. In this behalf, Mr. Yadav places reliance on the following paragraphs of the plaint:

"27. Thus Defendant no. 1&2 were always aware of Sh. Mukesh Jain's intentions to close his account with Defendant no. 4, still they connived & transferred the amounts from the personal account of Sh. Mukesh Jain which was supposed to be closed. In this way, the Defendant no. 1 and his father Sh. Vijay Jain, Defendant no. 2 and his wife, Defendant no. 3 have siphoned away the amount of Rs. 8,44,85,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Forty-Four Lakhs Eighty- Five Thousand Only) from Sh. Mukesh Jain's Andhra bank account.

"28. That it is submitted that there was no occasion for Sh. Mukesh Jain to transfer Rs. 8,44,85,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Forty-Four Lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand Only) in favour of Defendant no. 1 and his Wife Defendant no. 3. Sh. Mukesh Jain gowed no money whatsoever to Defendant no. 1 and/or Defendant no. 3, and neither is the said transfer out of free will or upon any written instructions. The same is neither a Gift from Sh. Mukesh Jain to Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 3. Infact Sh. Mukesh Jain never transferred any amount to the accounts of Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 3 in the past. Thus, the entire transaction is fraudulent and an act of Cheating committed by Defendant no. 1 and his Wife Defendant No.3, in conspiracy with his father, Sh. Vijay Jain, Defendant no. 2.

* * * * *

"30. That it is further stated that despite having knowledge that Sh. Mukesh Jain has appointed his son i.e., Plaintiff no. 1 as his lawful attorney and legal representative to look after his business, the Defendant no. 1 and his father Defendant no. 2 in order to Cheat Sh. Mukesh Jain and his family, fraudulently operated his bank account, and further misguided the staff members of Andhra Bank Karol Bagh not to entertain/act on any enquiries/requests from Plaintiff no. 1. The Plaintiffs have all reasons to believe that the bank officials were operating in connivance with the Defendants since the Defendant no. 2 is the landlord having leased his premises 17A/53 WEA Karol bagh New Delhi to Andhra bank vide lease deed dated 27.04.2018 registered on 01.05.2018 wherein Defendant No. 1 is one of the witnesses. The plaintiffs reserve the right to file separate criminal proceedings against the bank officials, in accordance with the law."

6. The essential thrust of Mr. Yadav's a