Section 12A mediation need not be repeated when the same returned plaint is re-presented.

The appellant-contractor was awarded a Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana works contract for upgrading the road from Village Jili to Sadu Choti, District Churu, under Work Order No. 508-17 dated 07.05.2010.

The work was to be completed by 15.03.2011, and the contractual defect-liability period expired on 14.03.2016; a completion certificate was issued on 01.06.2016.

Claiming unpaid contractual dues of ₹8,46,938, the appellant approached the Standing Empowered Committee under Clause 24 of the Standard Bidding Document on 07.11.2017 and deposited the prescribed fee.

It subsequently issued a legal notice dated 14.08.2018 and pursued arbitration, which was closed on 24.07.2019 without adjudication on merits.

After unsuccessful pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellant instituted a recovery suit before the Commercial Court, Jodhpur on 02.07.2022.

The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC upon establishment of the Commercial Court, Bikaner and was presented there as Civil Original No. 36/2023.

The Bikaner Commercial Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that Section 12A mediation had not been validly complied with, the claim was barred by limitation, and Clause 24 had not been properly invoked.

Whether pre-institution mediation already undertaken in respect of the same commercial dispute was required to be repeated when the plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and presented before the court having territorial jurisdiction.

Whether limitation necessarily commenced from the expiry of the defect-liability period on 14.03.2016, or whether the Commercial Court was required to determine when the claimed amount became due and the right to sue first accrued.

Whether the appellant had validly invoked the contractual dispute-resolution mechanism under Clause 24 of the Standard Bidding Document, and what legal consequence followed from the alleged procedural deviation.

Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 makes pre-institution mediation mandatory in commercial suits that do not contemplate urgent interim relief, as held in Patil Automation Private Limited v. Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and reiterated in M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Limited v. Union of India.

However, where mediation has already been completed between the same parties concerning the same dispute, the requirement need not be repeated merely because the plaint is returned and re-presented before the court of competent territorial jurisdiction.

Under the limitation principles stated in Geo Miller and Company Private Limited v. Chairman, Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, limitation begins when the cause of action or right to sue accrues, and subsequent correspondence, reminders or legal notices do not extend or revive limitation.

The contractual dispute-resolution clause must be interpreted and applied according to its prescribed sequence, designated authorities and procedural requirements; mere payment of the prescribed fee or approach to the Standing Empowered Committee does not, by itself, establish compliance with Clause 24.

The High Court held that the appellant had already undergone the statutory pre-institution mediation process before initially instituting the suit at Jodhpur.

Since the parties, contract, dispute and relief remained unchanged after return and re-presentation of the plaint, requiring a second mediation would merely duplicate an already completed statutory exercise; therefore, the finding of non-compliance with Section 12A was unsustainable.

On limitation, the Commercial Court had mechanically treated expiry of the defect-liability period as the date of accrual without examining the contractual terms governing payment or determining when the claimed amount actually became due.

Although Geo Miller barred reliance on subsequent correspondence as an extension of limitation, that principle could only be applied after identifying the true date on which the right to sue accrued.

Similarly, the Commercial Court had not sufficiently examined the sequence prescribed by Clause 24, the authorities approached by the appellant, the alleged deviation from the contractual procedure, or the legal effect of that deviation.

These matters therefore required fresh adjudication on the contract, pleadings and evidence.

The matter was remanded to the Commercial Court, Bikaner for fresh adjudication.

The High Court’s finding that Section 12A had been complied with was made binding, while limitation, compliance with Clause 24 and the merits of the recovery claim were left open for independent determination.

The parties were directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 10.08.2026, and the proceedings were ordered to continue from the stage of final hearing.