JUDGMENT : 

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

By way of present judgment, I intend to dispose off two revision petitions preferred by the defendant.

2. Civil Revision No.7506 of 2024 is directed against order 07.12.2024 whereby application filed by the defendant seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for want of pre-litigation mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2015 Act’), has been dismissed.

2. Civil Revision No. 4135 of 2024 is directed against order dated 01.07.2024 whereby application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, has been allowed.

3. Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery of Rs.2,08,63,870/- as dues for the material supplied. Along with the plaint, plaintiff preferred an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC seeking attachment before the judgment.

4. The Commercial Court vide order dated 01.07.2024 allowed application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and has put on hold a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- belonging to the defendant/petitioner lying deposited in the bank account.

5. Defendant appeared and filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, claiming that the same was filed by- passing the pre-litigation mediation as per the mandate of Section 12A of 2015 Act.

6. The issue w.r.t. compliance of Section 12A of 2015 Act and the necessity for pre-litigation mediation is no more res integra. The same has been held to be mandatory by Supreme Court in the case of ‘M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. Union of India and another’, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1129, observing as under:

“xxx xxxx xxx

62. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our findings as under:

a. The decision of this Court in Patil Automation (supra) lays down the correct position of law as regards Section 12A of the 2015 Act by holding it to be mandatory in nature.

b. As held in paragraph 104 of the decision in Patil Automation (supra), the declaration of the mandatory nature of Section 12A of the 2015 Act relates back to the date of the Amending Act.

c. As held in paragraph 113.1 of the decision in Patil Automation (supra), any suit which is instituted under the 2015 Act without complying with Section 12A is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11. However, this declaration applies prospectively to suits instituted on or after 20.08.2022.

d. A suit which contemplates an urgent interim relief may be filed under the 2015 Act without first resorting to mediation as prescribed under Section 12A of the 2015 Act. e. Unlike section 80(2) of the CPC, leave of the court is not required to be obtained before filing a suit without complying with Section 12A of the 2015 Act.

f. The test for "urgent interim relief" is if on an examination of the nature and the subject-matter of the suit and the cause of action, the prayer of urgent interim relief by the plaintiff could be said to be contemplable when the matter is seen from the standpoint of the plaintiff.

g. Courts must also be wary of the fact that the urgent interim relief must not be merely an unfounded excuse by the plaintiff to bypass the mandatory requirement of Section 12A of the 2015 Act.

h. Even if the urgent interim relief ultimately comes to be denied, the suit of the plaintiff may be proceeded with without compliance with Section 12A if the test for "urgent interim relief" is satisfied notwithstanding the actual outcome on merits.

i. Suits instituted without complying with Section 12A of the 2015 Act prior to 20.08.2022 cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 on the ground of non-compliance with Section 12A unless they fall within the exceptions stipulated in paragraph 113.2 and 113.3 of the decision in Patil Automation (supra).

j. In suits instituted without complying with Section 12A of the 2015 Act prior to 20.08.2022 which are pending adjudication before the trial court, the court shall keep the suit in abeyance and refer the parties to time-bound mediation in accordance with Secti