The High Court · 2025

1. Smt. Sonal Bhupta, Wo, Sri Devavrat Naresh Kantharia, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business,

2. Sri Devaviai Naresh Kantharia, Sio Sri l.Jaresh Kantharia, Aged about 34 years, Occ Br.isiness, Both are R/o. H.No. 3-5-1092/3, A B (Plot No 42) Venkateshwara Colony, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: I OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in COS No. 35 of 2024 on the file of the Special Judge for Triai and Disposai of Commerciai Disputes, Ranga Recidy District, at L.B, Nagar, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition 7 Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. M.Satish Kumar, representing SRI Dida Vijaya Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: Mr Ayush Sonthalia, Representing Sri Purushotamlaai, Advocate The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSI{UMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CML REVISION PETITION No.4536 OF 2025 DATE-:.19.12.2o25 Betq/een Sri Kanwaljeet Singh Johar Smt. Sonal Bhupta and another And .. Petitioner .Respondents Mr. M. Satish Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr. D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Ayush Sontha-lia, learned counsel representing Mr.Purushotamlaal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. ORDER: (Per Honble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar ("the Commercial Court'), dismissing I.A.No.96 of 2025 rn C.O.S.No.35 of 2024, frled by the petitioner herein under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 I I .- \ qrE! 2 ('C.P.CJ seeking rejection of the plaint filed in the Suit for eviction, a(Tears of rent and mesne profits.

2. The petitioner before us is the defendant in the Suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs.

3. According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant, the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the petitioner's I.A since the petitioner had raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court. Counsel submits that the dispute in question is not a 'commercial dispute' as envisaged under section 2(l)(c)(vii) of The Commercial Courts Act, 20 i 5 ('20 1 5 Act'). Counsel submits that the respondents/ plaintiffs did not comply with the mandate of section 12A of the 2015 Act and therefore, the plaint ought to have been rejected as being barred by law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs seeks to argue on the merits of the matter. However, this is not relevant for the purposq of adjudicating the present C.R.P, which only involves the decision of the Commercial Court in dismissing the I.A filed by the petitioner/defendant for rejection of the plaint in the Suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs.

5. From a pen:sa1 of the grounds ta_ken by the petitioner/defendant in the I.A., it is evident that the grounds 3 relate to the dispute not constituting a 'commercial dispute' as envisaged under section 2(l)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act and to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the requirements of section l2A of the 201 5 Act relating to the Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement.

6. There is a fundamental distinction between the grounds available to a defendant for seeking rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the C.P.C, which include, inter alia, absence of a cause of action as disclosed from the pleadings in the plaint and the plaint being barred by law, and the question of the Court trying the Suit lacking jurisdiction to receive, entertain and adjudicate the Suit. The second category i.e., defects or absence of jurisdiction is addressed only after the Court admits the plaint. Upon such adjudication, if the Court finds it lacks jurisdiction, the plaint shall be returned under Order ViI Rule 10 of the C.P.C rather t-han beilg dismissed as not maintainable. Thus, the maintainabilit5r of the Suit is distinct from the grounds for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule l1 of the C.P.C. In essence, while Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC relates to the cause (or the lack of it) in the substance of the suit, section 12A constitutes a bar before the Suit is I I instituted in a Commercial Court. \ I 4

7. In the present case, the entire case of the petitioner/defendant rests on the provisions of the 2015 Act, which relates to whether the Commercial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit and whether the plaintiffs have cbmplied with the mandate of Pre-lnstitution Mediation and Settlement under section 12A of the 2O15 Act. None of the grounds raised in the petitioner's I.A satisfy the criteria that a party/defendant is required to establish for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 1 1 of the C.P.C.

8. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the hrm view that the Commerciai Court has not committed any error in dismissing the I.A and holding that the issues raised are fit to be tried during the course of the trial. In any event, the impugned order was passed on O8.O9.2O25 and the petitioner has approached this Court on 12.12.2025. We, therefore, find no merit in the C.R.P.

9. C.R.P.No.4536 of 2025, along \rt/ith all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Note: .lnadverten y, while drafting the dismissed order in CRp No 4536 of 2026 da"ted 1Ah'.r)zi.. t{espondent No 2 rrvas also shown ai petir..iei" No.2,.when th6re is singte peritionei- frie iluy' mistake is rectified. ,,,^_ ,,-T_hi: was orspatched earlier on j 9 01 20i6. Order Substituted earlier order which l ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Sd/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY iSTAT'IT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// etraTtnN r\trEtr^ tr9 '1 . The Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Rangreddy District at L.B.Nagar. I

2. One CC to Sri Dicia Vqaya Kumar, Acivocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Purushotamlaal, Advocate IOPUC] 4- Two CD Copies Tn I NVB/AtIK v HIGH COURT DATED:1911212025 AM€NDEI) ORDER CRP.No.4536 of 2025 I \ DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I //s il3 i{5 S Tc r€ 2 I JAil 2[?[ :-- ! r-.I R ,J + o \ I @ ,"\ \' Itl