Urgent interim relief is evaluated from the plaintiff’s standpoint; post-filing conduct does not mandate plaint rejection.

The Plaintiff, a non-banking financial company, filed a commercial summary suit for the recovery of ₹123,50,10,401/- against the Defendants (borrower and guarantors).

The suit was filed alongside an interim application seeking the disclosure of assets, an injunction against the creation of third-party rights, and the appointment of a Court Receiver.

The Defendants filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds that the Plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The Defendants argued that a money suit does not contemplate "urgent interim relief" and that the Plaintiff's post-filing conduct (delay in moving the court) proved the lack of genuine urgency.

The court applied Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless the suit "contemplates urgent interim relief".

It relied on the Supreme Court's mandate in *Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.*, establishing Section 12A as mandatory.

It further applied the "standpoint of the plaintiff" test from *Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi* and *Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, which clarified that the "contemplation" of urgency involves deliberation by the court and that the eventual denial of relief on merits does not retroactively invalidate the institution of the suit.

Finally, it applied *Novenco Building and Industry A/S v. Xero Energy Engineering Solutions*, holding that mediation should not be used to allow a defendant to profit from procedural formalities while a plaintiff's rights are imperiled.

The Court reasoned that "contemplate" signifies the plaintiff’s deliberation and the court's assessment of the need for immediate intervention at the threshold.

It rejected the Defendants' argument that money suits cannot involve urgency, noting the Plaintiff’s specific pleadings regarding the risk of Defendants disposing of assets to defeat the decree.

The Court emphasized that the validity of the suit's institution depends on the pleadings in the plaint and the interim application at the time of filing, not on post-filing events such as the Department's' objections or the court's failure to grant immediate ad-interim relief.

It distinguished cases cited by the Defendants by noting that Section 12A cannot be "weaponized" to render a plaintiff remediless in the face of ongoing breaches or potential asset dissipation.

The Court concluded that post-filing circumstances are irrelevant to the jurisdictional bar of Section 12A.

Consequently, the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 was dismissed.