The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri K. R. Raman The Court made the following: ORDER .ir t THE HON'RLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO Civil Revision Petition No. 13 of 2o25 ORDER: (Per the tton ble Sri Justice J. Sreeniuas Rao) This civil revision petition is filed invoking the provisions of ArLicle 227 of the tlonstitution of India aggrieved by the order dated

14.ll.2Ol4 passed by the Additional Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as 'the Commercial Court') in I.A.No.240 of 20'23 in C.O.S.No. 17 of 2023, whereunder the application filed Lry the petitioner seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Dida Vijaya Kumar, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri l(.R.Raman, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Brief facts of case:

3.1 Facts giving rise to hling of this revision petition briefly stated are that the respondent/ plaintiff is absolute owner of building bearing Ir4unicipal No.8-2-293/ 82 / Al tO72, consisting of ground plus two upper floors, having a carpet area of 5,2O0 square feet constructed on plot No. 1O72, together with appurtenant land 2 €. .''l altogether admeasuring 1498 square yards situated at Road No.44, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 5oo033 (hereinafter referred to as .the suit schedule propertyJ and the respondent filed C.O.S.N o.l7 of 2023 for eviction of the petitioner from the suit schedule property 'and claiming arrears of mesne profits of Rs.7,50,OOO/_ i.e. from 15.09.2022 till OI.05.2023 and mesne prohrs of Rs.4,OO,OOO/_ per month from the date of suit till the date of petitioner vacates the suit schedule property and Rs. 1,OO,0O,O0O/- towards damages, on the ground that the respondent is absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the petitioner has taken the suit schedule property on lease for running a restaurant/ cafe/ bistro. Accordingly, the parties entered into a lease deed dated

11.O8.2O19. After expiry of the lease period on 15.09.2022, in spite of several demands made by the respondent, petitioner is not vacating the suit schedule property. At that stage, the respondent after issuing the legal notice on O9.l_2.2O22, has filed suit for evlctron.

3.2 In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also hled I.A.No.240 of 2023 invoking the provisions of Order VII Rute 1 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19O8 seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit flled by the respondent is -/ J barred by law. The Commercial Court dismissed the said I.A through its impugned order. Thus the petitioner hled the present revision petition

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner:

4.L Learned cc'unsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent without complying the mandatory provisions of Section l2-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2O15 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ActJ has filed the suit and the same is barred by law. The Commercial Court without properly considering the provisions of Section 12 of the Act dismissed the LA.No.24O of

4.2 He further submitted that in the absence of compliance of mandatory provisions in terms of Section l2-A of the Act, the Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to enterrain the suit in terms of Section 2 (c) (vii) of the Act. He further submitted that the respondent filed the suit for eviction basing upon the unregistered lease deed dated I 1.08.2019 and the same is not maintainable under law and basing on the unregistered document, the respondent is not entitled to seek eviction of the petitioner fr_o,p the suit schedule property. i i 4

4.3 He also submitted that the respondent valued the relief of eviction for Rs.48 lakhs. Whereas the relief for arrears of amount is valued only Rs.7,50,0O0/ - and the Commercial Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. The Commercial Court without properly considering the contentions of the petitioner has erroneously dismissed the application. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D.Keerthil.

5. Submissions ofthe learned counsel for the respondent:

5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Commercial Court after considering the contentions of the respective parties rightly dismissed the I.A.No.24O of 2023 in C.O.S.No. 17 of 2023 by giving cogent reasons and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court. Analysis:

6. We have considered the rival subrnissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. It is relevant to extract Section l2-A of the Act, which reads as follows: " l2'A -T1) A suit, which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under this Act, shall not be insLituted unless -,- . ' 1zo2a; s scc 8 ts -7 5 the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordancr: with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by [he Central Government. (2) The Central Government may, by notification, authorise the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act. 1987, for the purposes of pre institution mediation. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the trgal Services Authorities Act, 1987, 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 plaintill under sub- section (1 ): 19 of 1987 Provided that the period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties: Provided furthcr that, the period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation, such period sha-ll not be computed for thc purpose of limitation under the Limilation Act, i963. (4) lf the parlies to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and sha.ll be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator. (S)The settlement arrived at under this section shall have 26 or 1996 the same status and effect as if it is an arbitra-l award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996." 7 . The above said provision clearly says that when the suit does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Act, unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation in accordance with such manner, the plaintiff is not entitled to institute thp'said suit.

8. In the case on hand, the respondent hled the suit against the petitioner seeking for eviction of the suit schedule property, arrears E- 6 of mesne profits of Rs.7,SO,OOO/- i.e. from 14.O9.2022 tlll O1.O5.2O23 and direct the petitioner to pay mesne profits of Rs.a,00,000/ - per month from the date of suit till the date of petitioner vacates the suit schedule property and also seeking damages of Rs. 1 ,OO,00,00O/ - and for various reliefs, on

05.05.2023. Along with the said suit, the respondent hled two applications i.e. I.A.No. 154 of 2023 and 155 of 2023 under Order 15A and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, l9O8 seeking interim injunction restraining the petitioner from doing business in the suit schedule property and also direct the petitioner to deposit Rs.4,00,00O/- every month as mesne prohts during pendency of the suit, failing which the right of defense of the petitioner will be forfeited. The above said two applications are hled for grant of urgent interim reliefs. Hence the provisions of Section 12-A 6f the Act is not applicable. The Commercial Court after considering the provisions of Section l2-A of the Act rightly held that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.

9. Insofar as the other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for rejection of the plaint is that basing on the unregistered deed dated 11.08.2019, the respondent is not entitled to seek the eviction of the suit. schedule property is concerned, the admissibility o[ the document will arise during ,h. of trial "or."" 7 and that stage is not yet reached. Especially the petitioner is not entitled to seek rejection of the plaint on the ground that the document is not registered and the ingredients of Order VII Rute 1 1 of the Civii Procedure Code, 1908.

10. In Yamini Manohar (supra), the Hon'bte Supreme Court held that in applir:ation under Order VII, Rule l l of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court has to look into the averments made in the plaint and the documents lited along with the ptaint alone. The Court cannot at that stage look into the rvritten statement or the documents filed along with the written statement. \ 1 1 . Insofar as the other relief is concerned, in Mustigulla @ Namaswamy Hemanth Kumar v. Abhaya Infrastructure pvt. Ltd. And others2, the Division Bench of erstwhile High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra pradesh held that rejecrion of plaint on the ground of res judicala, cause of action, under valuation, limitation have to be decided on trial but the same cannot be a ground for rejection of plaint, especially when the parameters of Order VII Rule 11 of C.p.C. are not satisfied.

12. It is needless to observe that the respondent specifically mentioned that the value of the suit is Rs. 1,55,5O,O0O/_ and the '1 zo6 6l ALD 598 (DB) 8 same is more th€rn Rs.One Crore and basing upon the said value, the Commercial Court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit.

13. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principle laid down in the above decisions, this Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Commercial Court to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction under Artic\e 227 of tlrre Constitution of India.

14. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY/I Sd,- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT EGrjirRAR SE ION OFFICER

1. The Additional Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disoosal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Dida Vijaya Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K. R. Raman, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies To, VH/sh"\q Eh AI ( 2 L :[2 6 a * -.\: '. HIGH COURT DATED:0610112025 ORDER CRP.No.13 of 2O25 DISMISSING THE CRP 6*fr k6v