IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The bar against Civil Revision Applications from interlocutory orders under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act is enforceable, and the requirement for pre-institution mediation was not applicable to suits filed before its effective date.

ORDER :

(Per Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Commercial Court at Hyderabad rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The plaintiff/respondent herein had filed a Suit for a direction on the defendants/petitioners herein to pay Rs.29,78,10,763/- to the plaintiff along with future interest @ 24% p.a. The petitioners filed the present Interlocutory application in the said Suit for rejection of the plaint. The Commercial Court dismissed the petitioners’ application on the ground that the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was within the period of limitation i.e., from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 covered by the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Trial Court was of the view that the issue of limitation, being a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be decided at the threshold and would require adjudication of the pleadings and evidence which are to be led by the parties.

3. The other objection taken by the petitioners was on the respondent circumventing the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under section 12A of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Trial Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 and held that the mandatory nature of section 12A of the Act would only be made applicable on and from 20.08.2022 as held by Patil Automation (supra) and that the Suit, having been filed on 30.11.2021, would hence be saved from the embargo.

4. The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the petitioners relies on Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 and Patil Automation (supra) from the statutory mandate in section 12A of the 2015 Act to urge that the plaintiff should have first exhausted the pre-institution mediation requirement since the Suit did not contemplate urgent interim relief. Counsel submits that the judgment in Patil Automation (supra) only declared that a Suit violating the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act must be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. effective from 20.08.2022 which would be limited to the declaration itself and not the statutory mandate contained in section 12A of the 2015 Act. Counsel also relies on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in TATA Consumer Products Limited v. ITC Limited (C.M.A.No.69 of 2023, dated 21.04.2023) which reiterated the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act.

5. Counsel argues that the Civil Revision Petition is maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and relies on a Division Bench decision of this Court in M.V.Ramana Rao v. N.Subash (C.R.P.No.6745 of 2018, dated 10.04.2019). Counsel also relies on M/s.Harpreet Singh Chabra v. Mrs.Suneet Kaur Sahney (C.O.M.C.A.No.2 of 2018, dated 07.09.2018), which held that Article 227 of the Constitution can be invoked by the High Court despite a bar on filing of Civil Revision Applications from an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court under section 8 of the 2015 Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits on the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition and that section 8 of the 2015 Act bars Civil Revision Applications from an order passed by the Commercial Court. Counsel submits that Order XX of the C.P.C., as amended by the 2015 Act makes it mandatory that a judgment must be pronounced within 90 days from the conclusion of arguments. Counsel submits that filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is only to prolong the proceedings contrary to the mandate of the 2015 Act. Counsel submits that in any event, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the C.P.C along with the Suit seeking urgent relief.

7. It is also submitted that Patil Automation (supra) is prospective in its application i.e.,