The court affirmed that an application for urgent interim relief justifies the continuation of a suit despite procedural challenges under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Admit.

2. Heard finally at the stage of admission itself with the consent of parties.

3. The present Revision is filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 below Exhibit-39 passed by the Commercial Court at Mapusa. By this order, the Application filed by the Applicants/ Defendants under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 read with Section 9 of CPC for rejection of the plaint, was dismissed.

4. Mr. Lobo, appearing for the Applicants submits that initially, the Respondents/Plaintiffs filed a suit, which was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 251/2016 before the Court of the Civil Judge Junior Division at Mapusa Goa. The Applicants/ Defendants filed an Application for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued and that under the agreement, there is a clause of arbitration. The Respondents/ Plaintiffs then filed an Application for amendment, thereby, properly valuing the suit and paying the additional Court fees. After allowing such Application, Regular Civil Suit No. 251/2016 was converted into a Special Civil Suit and registered as Special Civil Suit No. 83/2017, on the basis of valuation shown in the amended plaint.

5. Mr. Lobo would submit that the learned Civil Judge Senior Division with whom the matter was pending being newly registered as Special Civil Suit, forwarded the file directly to the District Court with a request to register it as a Commercial Suit. The District Judge registered it as Special Civil Suit (Commercial) No. 4/2018 and issued notice to the Defendants. However, since there was no decision taken by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division as to whether the suit is actually a commercial dispute, the matter was sent back to the Civil Judge Senior Division by the District Court.

6. Mr. Lobo would submit that the learned Civil Judge Senior Division without considering the facts that it pertains to a commercial dispute, registered the suit as Commercial Suit No. 21/2022/A. Thereafter, the learned Court issued notices to the Advocate of the Defendants instead of issuing fresh summons. The Applicants/Defendants appeared and filed an Application for rejection of the plaint vide Exhibit-39 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC claiming that the procedure mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act has not been followed.

7. After hearing the parties, the learned Commercial Court passed the impugned order, which is challenged in the present Revision.

8. Mr. Lobo while relying upon the case of Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited, (2022) 10 SCC 1 and Yamini Manohar Vs. T.K.D. Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382 would submit that it is the duty of the Court to look into the plaint, the application and other documents so as to prima facie come to the conclusion as to whether there is any scope of interim relief or whether the Application is filed to avoid the mandated provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

9. Mr. Lobo further submits that after the matter was transferred to the Commercial Court, fresh summons to the Defendants was mandatory and only notice to the Advocate was not sufficient. In this respect, he relied on the decision in the case of Metro Ortem Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 7238. Mr. Lobo also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Krishnaji Mahadeo Bapat Vs. Wamanrao Balwantrao Shinde & Another, AIR 1976 BOM 36, wherein, the learned Single Judge of this Court has observed that once the matter is transferred, fresh summons to the parties is necessary.

10. Per contra Mr. Nigel Costa Frias appearing for the Respondents would submit that there is no error in the impugned order since the decision in the case of Patil Automation Private Limited (supra) has been relied upon as the Plaintiffs along with the plaint prayed for interim relief/injunction and the matter is pending for arguments on such Application. He submits that once the Court is seized with the matter in connection with