Pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory, and failure to comply necessitates rejection of the plaint unless the court finds genuine urgency in the relief sought.

ORDER :

(D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.)

(Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records and pleased to set aside the fair and decretal order in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.01 of 2022 dated 15.06.2024 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Kovilpatti.)

The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decretal order dated 15.06.2024 made in I.A.No.03 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.01 of 2022 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Kovilpatti.

2. By the said order, the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. By the said interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. The contention of the petitioner was that when the suit is taken on file as a commercial suit, the petitioner had not resorted to the mandatory pre-litigation mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and as such, the trial Court has no other go than to reject the plaint for not resorting to pre-litigation mediation.

3. The trial Court considered the case of the parties and considered the fact that firstly, the suit was initially filed as a normal suit and thereafter, transferred to the file of the Commercial Court and the Commercial Court proceeded with the trial and the entire trial itself is now complete and further, considered that the suit was also filed along with an urgent relief of attachment before judgment and on those grounds rejected the application filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that when the suit is ultimately taken on file as the commercial suit, pre-litigation mediation is held to be mandatory and the suit is filed without resorting to the pre-litigation mediation, the trial Court ought to have rejected the plaint.

5. I have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material records of the case.

6. The matter is no longer res integra. The question relating to pre-litigation mediation has since been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Patil Automation Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, 2022 SCC Online SC 1028 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India summarized the arguments against the mandatory mediation in paragraph No.9 and in paragraph No.48 held that Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is not a mere procedural law, but a substantive provision. In paragraph No.49, it is held that the very object will be defeated by noncompliance of the mandatory mediation. It has further held that the right to sue itself will accrue and fructify only on compliance of Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In paragraph Nos.70 and 71 of the said Judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dealt with the purpose of prelitigation mediation being the matter of public policy that commercial litigations should be resolved at the earliest and in paragraph No.77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the decision to mediate does not block access to justice. The Court held that unless a party resorts to prelitigation mediation, the plaint has to be rejected. The plaint has to be rejected even if the parties have not filed an application to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that pre-litigation mediation by itself is access to justice and based on public policy that commercial litigations shall be resolved in quick time thus furthering the cause of the ease of doing business.

7. Thus, as per Patil Automation, (supra), the requirement to attempt pre-litigation mediation Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is mandatory. If the parties filed the suit without any application for urgent relief and without resorting to the pre-litigation mediation, then the Court has no other option than to reject the plaint.

8. With reference to cases where the commercial suit is filed with an application for interim relief an