Sanjay Gupta And Ors vs Attar Chand And Ors

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

129
CR-7373-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision : 02.11.2026
Sanjay Gupta and Ors.
...... Petitioners
V/S

Attar Chand and Ors.
..... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI

Present: Mr. Kunal Dawar, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mayank Aggarwal, Advocate,
Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate,
Mr. Saurav Bajaj, Advocate and
Mr. Devesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate with
Mr. Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents


AMARJOT BHATTI J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioners/defendants Sanjay Gupta and others filed present civil
revision against impugned order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P-19) passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Panipat in Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 titled
“Attar Chand & others vs. Sanjay Gupta & others” whereby the application
filed under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC seeking
rejection of plaint has been dismissed without appreciating the material on
record.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants argued that the dispute
is pertaining to one memorandum of understanding dated 07.02.2018
(Annexure P-3). The plaintiffs Attar Chand and others filed Civil Suit No.32 of
2020 (Annexure P-2) against Sanjay Gupta and others seeking declaration that
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 2 -

memorandum of undertaking dated 07.02.2018 as null and void along with
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the passage as
detailed therein. In the said civil suit, the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 filed
application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for rejection of
plaint (Annexure P-6) and the same was decided vide order dated 04.08.2021
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat (Annexure P-7) whereby
the plaintiffs were directed to affix ad valorem court fee on the plaint on the
amount of Rs.60 crore i.e. the value of Memorandum of Undertaking dated
07.02.2018. Instead of complying the said order, the plaintiffs in that case filed
application dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-9) to withdraw the case. Statement
of the plaintiffs on that application is Annexure P-10 and accordingly vide
order dated 11.11.2021 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panipat
(Annexure P-11), the aforesaid civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn. In fact,
simultaneously the plaintiffs had filed second Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 titled
“ Attar Chand and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others ” (Annexure P-8) seeking
recovery of amount along with permanent injunction. Present petitioners filed
application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC read with
Section 151 CPC (Annexure P-12) for rejection of plaint. The said application
was contested by the plaintiffs by filing reply (Annexure P-13). Again, present
petitioners filed application (Annexure P-14) disclosing additional facts for
consideration of application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the reply thereto is
Annexure P-15. The said application was declined by learned Additional
District Judge, Panipat vide order dated 22.01.2026 (Annexure P-16). Present
petitioners/defendants challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 3 -

No.2800 of 2026 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.03.2026
(Annexure P-18) whereby the case was remanded back to the trial Court to
decide the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC afresh, accordingly and in
the light of principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
judgment of “Cuddalore Powergen Corporation Limited vs. M/s Chemplast
Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and another”, 2025 INSC 73 . Thereafter the
application was again heard by learned trial Court and it was again declined
vide impugned order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P-19) regarding which
present civil revision has been preferred.
3. It is argued that the second suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs
is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Learned counsel representing
petitioners/defendants referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Civil Appeal Nos.372-373 of 2025 decided on 15.01.2025, cited in
2025 SCC Online SC 82 case titled “Cuddalore Powergen Corporation
Limited vs. M/s Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited and another” paras
No.47 & 48 of which runs as under:-
“47. On a conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, what follows is
that:
i. The object of Order II Rule 2 is to prevent the multiplicity of
suits and the provision is founded on the principle that a person
shall not be vexed twice for one and the same cause.
ii. The mandate of Order II Rule 2 is the inclusion of the whole
claim arising in respect of one and the same cause of action, in
one suit. It must not be misunderstood to mean that all the different
causes of action arising from the same transaction must be
included in a single suit.
iii. Several definitions have been given to the phrase "cause of
action" and it can safely be said to mean - "every fact which would
be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to
support his right to the judgment of the Court". Such a cause of
action has no relation whatsoever to the defence that may be set up
by the defendant, nor does it depend upon the character of the
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 4 -

relief which is prayed for by the plaintiff but refers to the media
upon which the plaintiff asks the Court to arrive at a conclusion in
his favour.
iv. Similarly, several tests have been laid out to determine the
applicability of Order II Rule 2 to a suit. While it is acknowledged
that the same heavily depends on the particular facts and
circumstances of each case, it can be said that a correct and
reliable test is to determine whether the claim in the new suit is in
fact founded upon a cause of action distinct from that which was
the foundation of the former suit. Additionally, if the evidence
required to support the claims is different, then the causes of
action can also be considered to be different. Furthermore, it is
necessary for the causes of action in the two suits to be identical in
substance and not merely technically identical.
v. The defendant who takes shelter under the bar imposed by
Order II Rule 2(3) must establish that (a) the second suit was in
respect of the same cause of action as that on which the previous
suit was based; (b) in respect of that cause of action, the plaintiff
was entitled to more than one relief; and (c) being thus entitled to
more than one relief, the plaintiff, without any leave obtained from
the Court, omitted to sue for the relief for which the second suit
had been filed.
vi. The defendant must also have produced the earlier plaint in
evidence in order to establish that there is an identity in the causes
of action between both the suits and that there was a deliberate
relinquishment of a larger relief on the part of the plaintiff.
vii. Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established
satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of
inferential reasoning.
II. Status/Stage of the first suit is immaterial for the applicability
of Order II Rule 2 CPC
48. A careful perusal of Order II Rule 2 would indicate that it does
not impose any restriction on the applicability of the principles
therein based on the stage or status of the first suit. In other words,
there is no clear requirement that the first suit either be pending or
disposed of in order to make a plea of bar under Order II Rule 2
as regards the second or subsequent suit. It is conspicuous by the
absence of such a stipulation that the law makers thought fit that
the bar under this provision would apply if there is an identity in
the causes of action of both suits and irrespective of whether the
first suit is disposed or not. and that there was a deliberate
relinquishment of a larger relief on the part of the plaintiff. vii.
Since the plea is a technical bar, it has to be established
satisfactorily and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of
inferential reasoning. II. Status/Stage of the first suit is immaterial
for the applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC 48. A careful perusal
of Order II Rule 2 would indicate that it does not impose any
restriction on the applicability of the principles therein based on
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 5 -

the stage or status of the first suit. In other words, there is no clear
requirement that the first suit either be pending or disposed of in
order to make a plea of bar under Order II Rule 2 as regards the
second or subsequent suit. It is conspicuous by the absence of such
a stipulation that the law makers thought fit that the bar under this
provision would apply if there is an identity in the causes of action
of both suits and irrespective of whether the first suit is disposed or
not.”

In the case in hand, at the time of filing of Civil Suit No.32 of
2020 titled “ Attar Singh and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others ” (Annexure P-
2), the respondents/plaintiffs were required to include the whole of the claim
pertaining to the Memorandum of Undertaking dated 07.02.2018. Once any
relief was omitted in the said suit, the same could not be raised later on by filing
a fresh suit, as referred above. The first Civil Suit No.32 of 2020 (Annexure P-
2) titled “ Attar Singh and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others ” was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 11.11.2021 passed by learned Additional District
Judge, Panipat (Annexure P-11). No permission was sought to withdraw the
suit with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action. Therefore the
respondents/plaintiffs could not file second Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 titled
“Attar Chand and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others” (Annexure P-8). The
learned counsel for petitioners/defendants referred to both civil suits Annexure
P-2 and Annexure P-8 respectively, where the cause of action mentioned in
both the suits is the same. On this point, learned counsel representing
petitioners/defendants also referred to Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC whereby ‘once
the plaintiff abandons in suit or part of the claim without permission to
withdraw the same, then he is precluded from instituting any fresh suit in
support of such subject matter or such part of the claim’. The learned trial Court
while passing impugned order dated 17.08.2026 (Annexure P-19) failed to
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 6 -

consider the aforesaid provisions and wrongly declined the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC read with Section 151 CPC.
Apart from this, it is further pointed out that while filing Civil Suit
No.37 of 2021 titled “ Attar Singh and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others ”
(Annexure P-8), under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act 2015, the
provisions of Section 12A of the said Act were not duly complied with before
filing the said suit. There is mandatory provision pre-institution mediation in
commercial disputes. Therefore, even on that score the plaint is liable to be
rejected. Mere filing of application for interim stay is not sufficient to evade
Section 12 A of Commercial Courts Act 2015. Learned counsel for
petitioners/defendants referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32275 of 2023 decided on 13.10.2023, cited in
2023 SCC Online SC 1382 case titled “Yamini Manohar vs. T K D Keerthi”
paras No.7 & 8 of which runs as under:-
“7. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed under the
CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent interim relief, the commercial
court should examine the nature and the subject matter of the suit,
the cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The prayer
for urgent interim relief should not be a disguise or mask to
wriggle out of and get over Section 12A of the CC Act. The facts
and circumstances of the case have to be considered holistically
from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-grant of interim relief at
the ad-interim stage, when the plaint is taken up for
registration/admission and examination, will not justify dismissal
of the commercial suit under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code; at
times, interim relief is granted after issuance of notice. Nor can the
suit be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code, because
the interim relief, post the arguments, is denied on merits and on
examination of the three principles, namely, (i) prima facie case,
(ii) irreparable harm and injury, and (iii) balance of convenience.
The fact that the court issued notice and/or granted interim stay
may indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the plaint.
8. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the proposition
that the plaintiff has the absolute choice and right to paralyze
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 7 -

Section 12A of the CC Act by making a prayer for urgent interim
relief. Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory mandate of
pre-litigation mediation should be checked when deception and
falsity is apparent or established. The proposition that the
commercial courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be
accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff alone to decide
whether to resort to the procedure under Section 12A of the CC
Act. An 'absolute and unfettered right' approach is not justified if
the pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act is
mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil Automation Private
Limited (supra). The words 'contemplate any urgent interim relief'
in Section 12A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to the suit, should
be read as conferring power on the court to be satisfied. They
suggest that the suit must "contemplate", which means the plaint,
documents and facts should show and indicate the need for an
urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited exercise that
the commercial courts will undertake, the contours of which have
been explained in the earlier paragraph(s). This will be sufficient
to keep in check and ensure that the legislative object/intent behind
the enactment of section 12A of the CC Act is not defeated.”

In the light of aforesaid factual position, the impugned order dated
17.08.2026 (Annexure P-19) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, the same is
liable to be set aside and the plaint in Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 titled “ Attar
Singh and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others ” is liable to be rejected by
accepting present civil revision.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs took
the stand that the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as well as Order 23 Rule
1(4) CPC are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The relief claimed
and the cause of action involved in both the cases is different. On this point,
learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs referred to the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3624 of 2024 decided on
16.04.2026, cited in 2026 SCC Online SC 603 case titled “S.Valliammai &
Others vs. S.Ramanathan & Another” para No.7 of which runs as under:-
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 8 -

“ 7. A juxtaposition of the above discussion with the discussion for
rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code must
be made. On a conjoint reading of Order II Rule 2 with Order VII
Rule 11(d) of the Code, it emerges that the plea under Order II
Rule 2 of the Code cannot be a basis or a ground for rejection of
the plaint. In other words, it is for the defendant to establish by
way of evidence, the bar of the subsequent suit under Order II Rule
2 of the Code filed by the very same plaintiff. In such an event, on
a comparative analysis of the plaint filed in the first suit and the
plaint filed in the second suit, if the Court comes to the conclusion
that the second suit was filed on an identical cause of action which
led to the filing of the first suit and there was an omission to make
the claim or to reserve the reliefs to be claimed in the first suit in a
subsequent suit, then the bar under Order II Rule 2 of the Code
would apply to the subsequent suit or the second suit. Then the
claims or reliefs not maintainable would be rejected as the plaintiff
could not have sued for those reliefs by filing a second suit,
although technically, the filing of such a suit was not barred by
any law. On the other hand, if the cause of action for filing the
second suit is totally distinct from the cause of action from filing
the first suit and the reliefs claimed are distinct, subject-matter of
the suits are different and if the parties to the suit are also different
then in such a case, the plea under Order II Rule 2 of the Code
would not arise at all. The above are, inter alia, the heads of
distinction to be analysed while analysing the plaints in the
first/former suit and a subsequent suit.”

The main dispute is pertaining to Memorandum of Understanding
dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-3), regarding which even Sanjay Gupta and
others have filed Civil Suit No.69 of 2021 seeking specific performance of
Memorandum of Undertaking dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-17) and that case
is also pending before the Commercial Court at Panipat. The suit filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs seeking recovery and permanent injunction cannot be
rejected for hyper technical reasons. Petitioners/defendants are required to take
their stand by filing their written statement and thereafter the matter in
controversy can be decided on the basis of evidence led by both the parties.
Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs also referred to provision of Section
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 9 -

12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned counsel for
respondents/plaintiffs referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India cited in ( 2026) 4 Supreme Court Cases 815 case titled “Novenco
Building and Industry A/S vs. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Private
Limited and Another” para No.19 of which runs as under:-
“19. The legal test distilled from the aforesaid decisions for the
purposes of rejection of the plaint and for adjudication of interim
relief can be culled out as follows:
19.1 Section 12A mandatorily requires pre-institution mediation
for commercial suits, non-compliance of which would ordinarily
render the plaint institutionally defective.
19.2 A plaintiff can be exempted from the requirement of Section
12A only when the plaint and the documents attached with it
clearly show a real need for urgent interim intervention. A
wholesome reading of the plaint and the material annexed to the
plaint ought to disclose the need for urgent relief.
19.3 The court must look at the plaint, pleadings and supporting
documents to decide whether urgent interim relief is genuinely
contemplated. The court may also look for immediacy of the peril,
irreparable harm, risk of losing rights/assets, statutory timelines,
perishable subject-matter, or where delay would render eventual
relief ineffective.
19.4 A proforma or anticipatory prayer for urgent relief used as
a device to skip mediation will be ignored and the court can
require the parties to comply with Section 12A of the Act.
19.5 The court is not concerned with the merits of the urgent
relief, but if the relief sought seems to be plausibly urgent from the
standpoint of the plaintiff the court can dispense with the
requirement under Section 12A of the Act.”

However, in case any urgency is involved, then this provision is
not mandatory.
The learned trial Court while deciding the application has rightly
considered all the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the
impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed by learned Additional District Judge,
Panipat (Annexure P-19) does not require any interference.
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 10 -

5. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the record
carefully. The litigation which is already going on between the parties is matter
of record. Admittedly, Attar Chand and others filed suit for declaration for
declaring Memorandum of Undertaking dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) as
null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs with consequential
relief of permanent injunction (Annexure P-2). In this suit, the petitioners/
defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC
(Annexure P-6) which was allowed by learned trial Court vide order dated
04.08.2021 (Annexure P-7) whereby the plaintiffs were called upon to affix ad
valorem court fee on the plaint. It is also matter of record that
respondents/plaintiffs filed application dated 11.11.2021 (Annexure P-9) to
withdraw the said suit. In that suit the plaintiffs got their statement recorded
(Annexure P-10) whereby they stated that in the suit they were directed to affix
ad valorem court fee on the valuation of Rs.60 Crores. The court fee was
payable on the claim amount of Rs.44,76,70,071/- which they have already
affixed in another Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 titled “Attar Chand and others vs.
Sajay Gupta and others” . Therefore they withdrew the said suit and the
corresponding order of learned Additional District Judge, Panipat dated
11.11.2021 (Annexure P-11). From the perusal of statement (Annexure P-10) as
well as order (Annexure P-11) one thing is clear that the plaintiffs did not
conceal any fact from the court, rather they withdrew the said suit as they had
already filed Civil Suit No.37 of 2021 seeking recovery of Rs.44,76,70,071/-
along with the relief of permanent injunction (Annexure P-8). It is also matter
of record that Sanjay Gupta and others have also filed a suit for declaration as
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 11 -

well as specific performance of Memorandum of Understanding dated
07.02.2018 bearing Civil Suit No.69 of 2021 (Annexure P-17). In fact, both the
parties have filed separate suits against each other on the basis of aforesaid
Memorandum of Understanding dated 07.02.2018. The petitioners/defendants
filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC
(Annexure P-12) for the rejection of plaint. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11
CPC rejection of plaint runs as under:-
11. Rejection of plaint .— The plaint shall be rejected in the
following cases:— (a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time
to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is
returned upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on
being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper

within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be

barred by any law;
(e) where it is not filed in duplicate.
(f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule
9.”
At the time of deciding application filed under Order 7 Rule 11
CPC, the court is required to examine the pleadings of the plaint. No amount of
evidence can be looked into. Moreover a party cannot be denied relief merely
on account of inadvertence mistake.
6. It is the case of petitioners/defendants that the suit filed by the
plaintiffs is barred by law i.e. Order 2 Rule 2 CPC and Order 23 Rule 1(4) CPC.
The relevant provisions runs as under:-
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 12 -

ORDER II RULE 2 CPC:
2. Suit to include the whole claim .—(1) Every suit shall include
the whole of the claim which the plaintiff is entitled to make in
respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish and
portion of his claim in order to bring the suit within the
jurisdiction of any Court.
(2) Relinquishment of part of claim. —Where a plaintiff omits to
sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his
claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so
omitted or relinquished.
(3) Omission to sue for one of several reliefs .—A person entitled
to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may
sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the
leave of the Court, to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not
afterwards sue for any relief so omitted.
Explanation- For the purposes of this rule an obligation and a
collateral security for its performance and successive claims
arising under the same obligation shall be deemed respectively to
constitute but one cause of action.

ORDER XXIII
WITHDRAWAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF SUITS

1. Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim .—
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) xxx xxx xxx
(4) Where the plaintiff —
(a) abandons any suit or part of claim under sub-rule (1), or
(b) withdraws from a suit or part of a claim without the permission
referred to in sub-rule (3), he shall be liable for such costs as the
Court may award and shall be precluded from instituting any fresh
suit in respect of such subject-matter or such part of the claim.
(5) xxx xxx xxx”


7. The main arguments advanced by learned counsel for
petitioners/defendants is that the first suit filed by the plaintiffs was not
withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit on the same cause of action.
Therefore the second suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking recovery and permanent
injunction (Annexure P-8) is liable to be rejected. The first suit filed by the
plaintiffs was for declaration challenging the Memorandum of Undertaking
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 13 -

dated 07.02.2018 as null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs,
with relief of permanent injunction as detailed therein (Annexure P-2). The
second suit is pertaining to the recovery of Rs.44,76,70,071/- along with
permanent injunction (Annexure P-8) on the basis of aforesaid Memorandum of
Undertaking dated 07.02.2018. It is rightly pointed out by learned trial Court
that nature of both the civil suits as referred above is totally different. The other
important aspect of the case is Sanjay Gupta and others have also filed Civil
Suit No.69 of 2021 against Attar Chand and others seeking declaration and
specific performance of Memorandum of Undertaking dated 07.02.2018. Both
the civil suits are pertaining to same Memorandum of Undertaking dated
07.02.2018 (Annexure P-3). Facts and surrounding circumstances of both suits
filed against each other has to be seen. In such like situation it will not be
appropriate to reject the plaint at the very threshold of the Civil Suit No.37 of
2021 titled “ Attar Chand and others vs. Sanjay Gupta and others” (Annexure
P-8). It will be in the interest of justice that petitioners/defendants take their
stand in the written statement and thereafter, the issues are framed accordingly
and the matter requires proper adjudication after recording of evidence of both
the parties as per law.
8. The petitioners/defendants also raised the issue that the suit filed
by the plaintiffs is also barred under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act
2015. The provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 runs
as under:-
“12A . Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement .-(1) A suit, which
does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 14 -

not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-
institution mediation in accordance with such manner and
procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central
Government.
2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the
Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987(39 of 1987), for the purposes of pre-institution mediation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987(39 of of the Authority authorised by the
Central Government under sub-section (2) shall complete the
process of mediation within a period of three months from the date
of application made by the plaintiff under subsection (1):
Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a
further period of two months with the consent of the parties:
Provided further that, the period during which the parties
remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period
shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the
Limitation Act, 1963(36 of 1963).
(4) If the parties to the commercial dispute arrives at a settlement,
the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the
parties to the dispute and the mediator.
(5) The settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same
status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under
SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CR-7373-2026 (O&M) - 15 -

sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996.”
From the provisions itself, it is clear that the mediation is
mandatory for commercial disputes unless some urgent interim relief is claimed
therein. In the case in hand apart from suit for recovery, the plaintiffs also
sought the relief of permanent injunction and application under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was also filed. Therefore the objection raised
by learned counsel for petitioners/defendants does not hold any ground.
9. In the light of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any valid
reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 17.08.2026 passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Panipat (Annexure P-19), the same is accordingly
upheld and the civil revision preferred by the petitioners/defendants is
accordingly declined
10. Copy of this order be sent to the court concerned.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly as well.
(AMARJOT BHATTI )
JUDGE
02.11.2026.
Sunil Devi
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether Reportable : Yes/No

SUNIL DEVI
2026.11.05 10:30
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document