Procedural defects such as non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and deficiency in court fees are curable 'formal defects' under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) CPC, and at pre-summoning stage, liberty to file fresh suit should ordinarily be granted.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 16.02.2026 Pronounced on: 08.04.2026 + RFA(COMM) 102/2026 AND CM APPL. 10528/2026 KRISHAN CHAWLA ....APPELLANT Through: Mr. Subhankar Sengupta and Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate.

versus SANJEEV JAIN AND ORS. .... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Mr.

Hem Kumar and Ms. Niharika Mantoo, Advs. for R-1 to 2.

Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Advocate for R-3.

Mr. Mohd. Afaque, Advocate for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

J U D G M E N T

1. The present appeal assails the Order dated 15.12.2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial) (Digital-07), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Commercial Court”) in C.S. (COMM) No. 993/2025. By the impugned order, the suit filed by the Appellant seeking reliefs of declaration and injunction was dismissed as withdrawn simplicitor without liberty to file a fresh suit.

2. Briefly stated, the Appellant instituted a commercial suit on 01.12.2025 seeking, inter alia, a declaration that certain cash receipts relied upon by Defendant No. 1 were false and fabricated, along with consequential injunctive reliefs restraining their use and enforcement of alleged rights arising from an agreement dated 01.02.2022 (executed on 01.08.2022). Along with the plaint, the Appellant filed an application seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act and an application under Order XXXIX Rules

1 and 2 CPC for interim relief.

3. The matter was first taken up on 03.12.2025, when arguments were heard on the application for interim relief. The Commercial Court rejected the said application, inter alia, on account of non- compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and observing certain other defects like non-payment of adequate court fees, failure of plaintiff to show bona fide behind statement made in the plaint reflecting no cause of action. The detailed order was uploaded on 10.12.2025.

4. In view of the observations made by the Commercial Court regarding compliance with Section 12A of the Act and other defects, the Appellant sought withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh after curing the defects. On 15.12.2025, such a request was made.

5. However, the Commercial Court declined to grant such liberty and treated the withdrawal as simpliciter, while further observing that the plea of withdrawal is reflection of conformity that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action and directing that a decree of dismissal be drawn.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.

7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the grievance of the appellant is two-fold. Firstly, that the Commercial Court erred in refusing to grant liberty to withdraw the suit with permission to institute a fresh suit after complying with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act and curing other procedural defects, thereby effectively foreclosing the Appellant’s remedy at the threshold. Secondly, that the Commercial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by recording observation which were somewhat conclusive findings on the merits, at the pre-summoning stage, contrary to the settled scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC, which mandates that only the averments in the plaint be considered, and further rendered observations inconsistent with its own earlier order dated 03.12.2025, wherein it had observed that the issues required adjudication at trial.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the impugned order, contending that the Commercial Court rightly examined the maintainability of the suit at the threshold and correctly observed that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action.

10. It is sub