Mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act is dispensed with if the suit involves genuine urgent interim relief or if mediation has already taken place in a prior ordinary suit arising from the same dispute.

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 09^th January, 2026 Date of Decision :16^th January, 2026 + CM(M) 1762/2025, CM APPL. 57124/2025 & CM APPL.

70629/2025 VANITA BATHLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal and Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Senior Advocates with Mr. Ankit Banati, Mr. Umang Tyagi, Mr. Zuber Ali, Ms. Archisha Satyarthi and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, Advocates.

versus SMT. SHASHI BAJAJ .....Respondent Through: Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Ms. Kavya Arora and Mr. Himanshu Kumar Pathak, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 07^th August, 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed by the trial Court in CS (COMM) 364/2023, whereby the trial Court has rejected the plea raised by the petitioner alleging the non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’)

before filing of the suit.

2. Learned Senior Counsels on behalf the petitioner have argued that as the respondent has failed to exhaust the mandatory remedy of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act, and also that the suit does not disclose any case of “urgent interim relief”, so the plaint is liable to be rejected in accordance with law. The plaint in this respect is vague, non- specific, and a mere eyewash intended to circumvent the mandatory provisions of Section 12A of the Act. The application of the respondents seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation is still pending which shows that there is no “urgent interim relief” involved in the suit. It is further argued that vide order dated 15^th April, 2023, the plaint in the suit bearing no. Civ DJ No. 159/2020 was returned on the ground that the dispute constituted a commercial dispute and was, therefore, required to be instituted before the Commercial Court and Consequently, pre-institution mediation was mandatory before instituting the suit in the Commercial Court.

Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the trial Court has passed the impugned order after considering the material on record. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The arguments of the petitioner are without any merit and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. Record perused.

4. In brief, the case of the respondent/plaintiff as alleged in the plaint is that they are the owners of the suit property i.e., Shop No. A-3/264, Eastern Side, Ground Floor, admeasuring 750 sq. ft., situated at Paschim Vihar, Delhi, which was jointly purchased by Ms. Shashi Bajaj and Smt. Neelam Bajaj vide a sale deed dated 28^th September, 2009. On the request of the petitioner/defendant, the respondent/plaintiff vide rent agreement dated 15^th April, 2015, leased out the suit property to the petitioner for a period of nine (09) years only, commencing from 1^st May, 2015 till 30^th April, 2024. As the petitioner began committing defaults in payment of rent, so the respondent in exercise of his rights as per Clause 5 of the rent agreement terminated the tenancy of the petitioner vide a legal notice dated 08^th January, 2020. To the said notice the petitioner issued a frivolous reply fabricating a false story that the respondent had executed an agreement to sell dated 07^th March, 2015 in favour of the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- (60 Lakhs). The petitioner has refused to vacate the suit property. Thereafter, the respondent has filed the present suit claiming the relief of possession of the suit property alongwith other reliefs.

4.1 Alongwith the plaint, the respondent has also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, in which it is prayed that ex-parte ad-interim injunction be granted to restrain the petitioner from