The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit re-evaluating evidence; intervention is warranted only in cases of clear jurisdictional flaws or miscarriage of justice.

ORDER:

Alok Aradhe, CJ.

Mr. R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as, “the Commercial Court”), in C.O.S.No.11 of 2024 by which the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner, namely I.A.No.297 of 2024, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit seeking dissolution of the partnership firm which was constituted on 01.06.2023 as well as sought rendition of the accounts. In addition, the respondent No.1 also sought the relief to appoint a receiver to operate and run the business of the partnership firm. Along with the plaint, the respondent No.1 filed an interlocutory application, namely I.A.No.192 of 2024, seeking urgent interim relief to restrain the petitioner from operating the petrol filling station on the ground that the petitioner has been siphoning the funds from the account of the partnership firm.

5. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, inter alia, on the ground that the plaint be rejected as the respondent No.1 has failed to comply with the pre-institution mediation as contemplated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”). The Commercial Court, by an order dated 05.09.2024, rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Commercial Court ought to have appreciated that no urgent interim relief was sought in the petition. It is pointed out that the cause of action for filing the suit accrued on 19.12.2023, whereas the suit was filed on 30.03.2024. It is further submitted that the Commercial Court has rejected the prayer for interim relief which was sought for by the respondent No.1. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to wriggle out and to get over the mandatory requirement under Section 12A of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , (2024) 5 SCC 815 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 .

7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.

8. The issue whether or not urgent interim relief has been sought for is a question which has to be adverted by the Commercial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. The respondent No.1 had filed the suit seeking the relief of dissolution of the partnership firm as well as rendition of accounts and for appointment of receiver. Along with the plaint, the respondent No.1 had filed an interlocutory application seeking urgent interim relief to restrain the petitioner from operating the petrol filling station on the ground that the petitioner has been siphoning the funds.

10. Merely because the prayer for interim relief has been rejected, no inference can be drawn that no urgent interim relief has been sought for in the suit. The question whether or not the procedure prescribed under Section 12A of the Act has been complied with is a question which has to be decided in the facts of each case.

11. The Commercial Court, by an order dated 05.09.2024 on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the prayer made in I.A.No.297 of 2024, has held that the plaint is not liable to be rejected on account of non-compliance with the mandate contained in Section 12A of the Act. The aforesaid finding of fact cannot be termed to be based on no evidence or perverse.

12. The scope of jur