Punjab-Haryana High Court
Patil Automations Pvt. Ltd And Others vs Rakheja Engineers Pvt Ltd on 9 September, 2021
Author: H.S.Madaan
Bench: H.S.Madaan
CR-1853-2021(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-1853-2021(O&M)
Date of decision:-9.9.2021
M/s Patil Automation Private Ltd. Office and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Rakheja Engineers Private Limited and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Ayush Negi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
M/s Patil Automation Private Ltd. Office, Sh.Manoj Panduranga Patil and Ms.Aarti Manoj Patil have brought the present civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of order dated 16.8.2021, copy Annexure P6 passed by Additional District Judge, Faridabad.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that M/s Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,40,291/- against defendants - M/s Patil Automation Private Ltd. Office, Sh.Manoj Panduranga Patil, Ms.Aarti Manoj Patil and Sh.Rohit Raja Kundami under Order XXXVII CPC in Commercial Court, Commercial Division, Faridabad.
On getting notice, the defendants appeared and filed an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 and Sections 9 and 20 CPC 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2021 21:49:29 ::: CR-1853-2021(O&M) -2- taking various legal objections, to wit that since no cause of action had arisen to the plaintiffs at Faridabad, therefore, the Court at that place lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit and as a matter of fact the jurisdiction lies with the Court at Pune; that the suit is barred by limitation; that the suit had been filed without adhering to Section 12A(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is mandatory for any suit of commercial nature to be filed in the Court.
That application was resisted by the plaintiff by filing a detailed reply.
The trial Court vide impugned order had dismissed the said application, which left the defendants aggrieved and they have preferred the present revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists/petitioners besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the present revision petition.
The order passed by the trial Court is quite detailed, well reasoned based on proper appraisal and appreciation of the legal as well as factual position and the same does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity and can certainly be not termed as arbitrary or having been passed against settled legal principles.
The trial Court has dealt with the objections so raised by the defendants in the application. With regard to the objection of Court at Faridabad lacking territorial jurisdiction and claim of plaintiffs being time barred, it has been observed that those are mixed question of law and 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2021 21:49:29 ::: CR-1853-2021(O&M) -3- facts, therefore, those are being left open to be decided after evidence is led by the parties. These observations have not been attacked by learned counsel for the revisionists/petitioners during the course of his arguments. His main thrust has been with regard to non-compliance of Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, which according to learned counsel for the revisionists is mandatory in nature and was not resorted to by the plaintiffs before filing of the suit. The trial Court has dealt with such aspect in detail in para No.20 of the impugned order, which for ready reference is being reproduced as under:
20. From the bare perusal of Section 12A, it is crystal clear that the procedure provided is mandatory in nature and if by applying the said principles, the suit of the plaintiff is rejected, then it would have a catastrophe effect. The court is of the view that the legislature has no such intention to frame such stringent provision the said rules. The aim and object of Section 12A is to ensure that before a commercial dispute is filed before the court, the alternative means of dissolution are adopted so that the genuine cases come before the Court. Further, it also appears to the court that the said procedure has been introduced to de-congest the regular courts. It is pertinent that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case Ganga Tara Vazirani (supra), held that the procedure provided under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act is not a penal enactment for punishment and there is no embargo in filing the suit without exhausting the remedy of mediation specially when an attempt is clear to show that the intention of the applicant has already been made and failed. The fact is clear that before filing the suit, the respondent/plaintiff has sent e-mail and legal notice and despite that the applicant/defendant failed to make the payment of the dues. Moreover, it is well settled that the procedure and law are for advancement of justice and not to thwart on technical
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2021 21:49:29 ::: CR-1853-2021(O&M) -4- grounds. Thus, in the larger interest of justice, the court deems it appropriate that the civil suit can be kept in abeyance and both the parties are directed to appear before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Faridabad on 26.08.2021 for the purpose of mediation as per the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and the Rules framed thereunder. With these directions, the application is disposed of.
Though learned counsel for the revisionists/petitioners has contended that on account of non-compliance of mandatory provision of Section 12A of the Act by referring the dispute to mediation in an attempt to settle the dispute between the parties amicably, the present suit should be dismissed. But I find that it would not be proper and appropriate to adopt such type of approach. The Courts are meant to deliver substantial justice. The rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and are meant to advance ends of justice. The Courts are not to get bogged down in technicalities of the procedure so as to lose sight of its main duty i.e. to dispense justice. The purpose of referring the dispute to the mediation centre before start of litigation is to explore the element of settlement between the parties and to make efforts to avoid unnecessary litigation. But if a suit is filed without taking recourse to the procedure under Section 12A of the Act that does not mean that the case of the plaintiff is to be rejected outrightly. This could certainly be not the intention of the Legislature. An enactment is to be interpreted in a manner that it does not result in delivery of perverse justice. While dismissing the application of the defendants for rejection of the plaint for the reason of plaintiffs having not resorted to mediation before filing of the suit, the trial Court in its 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2021 21:49:29 ::: CR-1853-2021(O&M) -5- wisdom has directed that civil suit be kept in abeyance and both the parties were directed to appear before Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Faridabad on 26.8.2021, for the purpose of mediation as per the provisions of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and the Rules framed therein. The revisionists can certainly not insist that suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed for violation of Section 12A of the Act. The trial Court while dismissing the application has relied upon judgment by High Court of Bombay delivered in Ganga Taro Vazirani Versus Deepak Raheja, date of decision 16.2.2021. Thus no interference with the impugned order by way of exercising a revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 115 CPC is required.
Therefore, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same stands dismissed.
9.9.2021 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2021 21:49:29 :::