Prior ex parte Section 12A dispensation does not preclude independent scrutiny of genuine urgency under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Respondent No. 1 instituted a commercial suit for recovery of ₹5,18,10,670 along with interest at 18% per annum and consequential reliefs.

Since the suit was instituted without pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application seeking dispensation of that requirement on the ground of urgency.

The Commercial Court, by an ex parte order dated 4 October 2025, permitted institution of the suit without pre-institution mediation.

After entering appearance, the petitioners filed their written statement on 2 February 2026.

They thereafter filed I.A. No. 15 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, contending that the plaint was barred for non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 12A.

The Commercial Court dismissed the application on 16 July 2026, holding that the earlier order granting permission to institute the suit without mediation concluded the issue and that the application was intended to delay the proceedings.

The petitioners challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Commercial Court was justified in dismissing the petitioners’ application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC solely on the ground that permission to institute the suit without pre-institution mediation had earlier been granted ex parte?

2. Whether, for determining compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court was required to independently examine from the plaint whether the suit genuinely contemplated urgent interim relief at the time of institution?

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory for commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief; a suit instituted in violation of that mandate is liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.

The exception applies only where the suit genuinely contemplates urgent interim protection, and the mere inclusion of an interim-relief prayer does not automatically attract the exception.

Relying principally on Patil Automotive Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1, the Court applied the rule that Section 12A is mandatory and that non-compliance may result in rejection of the plaint.

The Court also considered Aarti Scans Pvt. Ltd. v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine Mad 2440, which recognises the defendant’s right to raise an objection regarding Section 12A compliance after entering appearance.

The Court also considered the principle that an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) must be determined on the statutory objection independently.

The High Court held that the Commercial Court had adopted an erroneous approach by treating the earlier ex parte order as conclusively deciding the Section 12A issue.

That order had been passed when only the plaintiff was before the Court; the defendants had no opportunity to contest whether the alleged urgency was genuine.

The subsequent objection under Order VII Rule 11(d), raised after the defendants entered appearance, therefore required independent consideration.

The Court clarified that the relevant inquiry was not whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed in obtaining interim relief, but whether a meaningful reading of the plaint disclosed a genuine and immediate need for such protection when the suit was instituted.

At the same time, merely adding a prayer for urgent interim relief could not be used to circumvent the mandatory mediation requirement.

Since the Commercial Court had not undertaken this examination and had dismissed the application solely on the basis of the prior permission order, its decision could not be sustained.

It directed the Commercial Court to reconsider the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC in accordance with law, including whether the plaint, on its own averments, disclosed a genuine case of urgent interim relief falling within the exception to Section 12A.

All interlocutory applications in the writ petition were closed.