IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

Ajith Padival

Proprietor,

Saddles India,

No.257/1-13, Bannerghatta Road,

N.S.Palya, BTM Layout,

Bangaluru 560 076

Petitioner/Defendant

Vs

M/s. Vinyork Leather Works

173, Sidco Industrial Complex,

Sipcot, Ranipet 632 403,

Rep by its Partner,

Si.Ranganathan Harikrishnan

Respondent/Plaintiff

PRAYER

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the Order passed in IA.No. 8/2023 in OS.No.76/2021 dated April 27, 2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore

District and thereby allow the Civil Revision Petition.

For Petitioner: Mr.D.K.Ramesh Kumar,

for Mr.T.N.Rajeshwaran

For Respondent: Mr.P.Senthildhandapani

ORDER

This Civil Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the dismissal Order passed in Interlocutory Application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) read with Section 12(A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 in I.A.No.8 of 2023 in OS.No.76/2021 by the Principal District Judge, Vellore, Vellore District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’), the Petitioner therein has preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. The Revision Petitioner herein is the Defendant and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties will from now on be referred to in this Order as per their array in the Original Suit. The Defendant filed a petition in IA.No.8 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 r/w. Section 12A of the 2015 Act, praying to reject the plaint stating that the Plaintiff has not fulfilled the mandatory provision of pre- institution of mediation and settlement as prescribed under Section 12A of the

2015 Act.

3. The Plaintiff filed a Commercial Original Suit against the Defendant seeking a money decree for a sum of Rs.1,91,33,739.27 (Rupees One Crore Ninety One Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine and Twenty Seven Paise) with an interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.

4. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, held that the suit was filed on March 28, 2019 i.e., prior to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Patil Automation Private Limited vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited reported in (2022) 10 SCC 1 and further a necessity arose for the Plaintiff to get an urgent relief under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC. Accordingly, the provisions of Section 12A was not complied with. Holding so, the Trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Application. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner therein has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

5. Admittedly, the Plaintiff filed a suit against the Defendant seeking a money decree for Rs.1,91,33,739.27 along with interest at 24% per annum. Admittedly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had money transaction under Section 2(c) of the 2015 Act. Hence the suit was filed as Commercial Original suit. The suit was filed on April 30, 2021 and on the same date, it was taken on file. Further, along with the plaint, the Plaintiff filed a petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking a relief to attach the Defendant's property and hence, the suit was not referred to pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the 2015 Act. However, since the suit was filed prior to the judgment of M/s.Patil Automation Private Limited, the plaint cannot be rejected for non-

compliance of Section 12A of the 2015 Act.

6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited vs. Union of India reported in (2025) 9 SCC 424 held as follows:

“71. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our findings as under:

71.1. The decision of this Court in Patil Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC (Civ) 545] lays down the correct position of law as regards Section 12-A o