Distinction between rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and return of a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC; jurisdiction and pre-institution mediation requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, do not warrant rejection under Order VII Rule 11.

O R D E R:

(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar (‘the Commercial Court’), dismissing I.A.No.96 of 2025 in C.O.S.No.35 of 2024, filed by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C’) seeking rejection of the plaint filed in the Suit for eviction, arrears of rent and mesne profits.

2. The petitioner before us is the defendant in the Suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs.

3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner’s I.A since the petitioner had raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel submits that the dispute in question is not a ‘commercial dispute’ as envisaged under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘2015 Act’). Counsel submits that the respondents/plaintiffs did not comply with the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected as being barred by law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs seeks to argue on the merits of the matter. However, this is not relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the present C.R.P, which only involves the decision of the Commercial Court in dismissing the I.A filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint in the Suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

5. From a perusal of the grounds taken by the petitioner/defendant in the I.A., it is evident that the grounds relate to the dispute not constituting a ‘commercial dispute’ as envisaged under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act and to the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the requirements of section 12A of the 2015 Act relating to the Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.

6. There is a fundamental distinction between the grounds available to a defendant for seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C, which include, inter alia, absence of a cause of action as disclosed from the pleadings in the plaint and the plaint being barred by law, and the question of the Court trying the Suit lacking jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate the Suit. The second category i.e., defects or absence of jurisdiction is addressed only after the Court admits the plaint. Upon such adjudication, if the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the plaint shall be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the C.P.C rather than being dismissed as not maintainable. Thus, the maintainability of the Suit is distinct from the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C. In essence, while Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC relates to the cause (or the lack of it) in the substance of the suit, section 12A constitutes a bar before the Suit is instituted in a Commercial Court.

7. In the present case, the entire case of the petitioner/defendant rests on the provisions of the 2015 Act, which relates to whether the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and whether the plaintiffs have complied with the mandate of Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement under section 12A of the 2015 Act. None of the grounds raised in the petitioner’s I.A satisfy the criteria that a party/defendant is required to establish for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the firm view that the Commercial Court has n