[2025:RJ-JP:5109] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 167/2023 Sijcon Consultations Pvt. Ltd., Office At Shop No. 17, Heera Panna Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara (Raj.) Through Managing Director. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Golden Key, Proprietorship Firm, Through Proprietor Ashish Tiwari, Office At 21, Mahaveer Colony, Ramgiri, Badgao, Udaipur , Rajasthan. 2. J C B India Ltd., Jaipur Unit, Office At Plot No. Dta-006- 001-002, Mahindra World City, Bagru Khurd, Opp. Petro India Pvt. Ltd. Rajasthan, 302037 Through Authorized Signatory. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Agarwal with Ms. Anita Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur for Mr. Shashank Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 05/02/2025 1. Aggrieved from dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 27.06.2023 in commercial suit No.239/2023 passed by learned Judge, Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur Metro-II instant petition is preferred by petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner defendant while relying upon judgment in case of Patil Automation Private Ltd. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 1 submitted that Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015, as amended in 2018 is a mandatory provision and without invoking the provision [2025:RJ-JP:5109] (2 of 4) [CR-167/2023] of pre-litigation mediation a commercial suit cannot be registered. He further submitted that though an application for temporary injunction was filed by the plaintiff with suit but there is no urgency and the plaintiff has not able to justify the urgency to by- pass the mandatory provision of pre-litigation mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. 3. None present on behalf of respondent plaintiff despite service. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the case of petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the impugned order. 6. Instant revision petition is preferred in a suit instituted before the commercial court by respondent No.1 plaintiff. The contention of present petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 CPC relates to filing of commercial dispute without invoking provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. 7. The principle of adjudication under Order VII Rule 11 CPC are quite clear and a meaningful reading of plaint along with documents annexed with the plaint is required. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahibhen Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRs and Ors. 2020 SCC Online (SC) 562 while dealing with an appeal against an order allowing rejection of a suit at the threshold, had occasion to consider various precedents to discuss the intent under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if no cause of action is disclosed in the plaint, or if the suit is barred by limitation, court would not permit protraction of the proceedings [2025:RJ-JP:5109] (3 of 4) [CR-167/2023] and it would be necessary to put an end to the shame litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted. 9. After placing reliance upon Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 SCC (SUPP) 315 opined that the entire purpose of conferment of such power is to ensure that a litigation, which is meaningless and bond to prove abortive should not be permitted to occupy the time and space of the Courts. The power on the Court to terminate a civil action is, however, a drastic one, and the conditions enumerated in Order VII, Rule 11 are required to be strictly adhered to. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with such an application seeking rejection of a plaint clarified that while determining any application filed under Order VII Rule 11 the court should restrict itself to the plaint and should not go into the detail facts as provided under the written statement or even in the application filed for rejection of plaint. While scrutinizing the averments in the plaint, the Court can read documents annexed and relied upon in the plaint. 11. Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC provides that a plaint should be rejected if the suit is barred by any law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ramisetty Venkatanna Vs. Nasyam Jamal Saheb 2023 INSC 458 has observed that plaint should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a)(d) of CPC if it is vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by law. 12. In case of Patil Automation Private Ltd. Vs. Rakheja Engineers Private Ltd. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that non-compliance of provision under Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act will result into rejection of commercial [2025:RJ-JP:5109] (4 of 4) [CR-167/2023] suit filed before the commercial court but in case where an urgent relief is sought then it is necessary to comply with provisions under Section 12A of the Commercial Court Act and rules made therein. 13. Having considered that an application for temporary injunction was also filed by respondent plaintiff along with suit. The plaintiff has a ground to institute a suit without adopting process of pre-institution mediation. At the stage of institution, no court can look into the nature of urgency and merits of urgency as prayed by plaintiff at the time of institution of suit particularly looking to provision under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. This Court cannot go into the merits of relief for urgent hearing and urgency as pleaded by respondent plaintiff. 14. In view of aforesaid the judgment as referred by learned counsel for petitioner is not applicable in the fact and circumstances of the case and revision petition sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /105