IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld that urgency in a suit is determined by the latest events leading to its filing, justifying the need for urgent interim relief under section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

ORDER :

(Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.) :

The present Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P) arises out of an order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Additional Commercial Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (Commercial Court), in I.A.No.323 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.42 of 2023.

2. The petitioners before us are the defendants in the Suit (C.O.S.No.42 of 2023) filed by the respondent/plaintiff for declaration of dissolution of the defendant No.1-partnership firm and a direction on the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for rendition of accounts.

3. By the impugned order dated 18.04.2024, the petitioners’ application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C was filed on the Suit not complying with the statutory mandate of section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (2015 Act) which declares that a Suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Act, shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of Pre-Institution Mediation as prescribed by the Rules made by the Central Government.

5. Counsel submits that the statements in the plaint make it clear that there was no urgency for any interim orders and that the respondent/plaintiff should hence have first explored the alternative dispute resolution as mandated under section 12A of the 2015 Act. Counsel submits that the cause of action pleaded in the plaint begins from October, 2021, whereas the Suit was filed in October, 2023. Counsel places the individual paragraphs of the plaint in support of his contention and the dates in a tabulated statement in paragraph 32 of the plaint.

6. Counsel further submits that the C.R.P. is maintainable since the High Court can invoke its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, even in the face of the bar contained in section 8 of the 2015 Act, when there is a grave injustice or gross failure of justice.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned order to urge that the Suit required urgent interim orders as would be evident from the statements made in the plaint.

8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. It is settled law that for considering rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C., the Court must look most meaningfully at the statements made in the plaint in its entirety. The rejection, if granted, must also be under one of the sub-rules of Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C including absence of the cause of action of a Suit or where the Suit appears from the statements in the plaint to be barred by law (Order VII Rule 11 (a) & (d) of the C.P.C respectively). Therefore, we only propose to look at the statements made in the plaint filed by the respondent.

10. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, as reflected from the plaint, relate to the defendant No.1, which is a partnership firm. The plaintiff is one of the partners against 2 other partners i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3, respectively. The Suit was filed for dissolution of the defendant No.1-partnership firm and for a direction on the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for rendition of accounts of the partnership firm and for appointment of a Receiver for conducting Audit of the books of accounts of the partnership firm.

11. The relevant paragraphs of the plaint are as follows:

11.1. Paragraph 14 states the plaintiff’s role in sourcing clients and meeting of the architects as partners to the firm and the role of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 for handling the Bank Accounts and accounting of the firm. The plaintiff’s grievance is that the defendant No.2 did not share any information with regard to the accounts of the defendant No.1- partnership firm with the plaintiff.

11.2. Paragraph 17 states that the show room of the partnership firm was shifted in 20