Page 1 RFA No.44/2025

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU &KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

(Through Virtual Mode)

…

RFA No.44/2025

Reserved on: 24.04.2026

Pronounced on: 04.06.2026

Uploaded on: 04.06.2026

Whether the operative part or full

Judgment is pronounced: Full

JKR Partnership Firm

through its Partner

Rajneesh Jamwal Age 34

years, Malik Market

Byepass Road, Opposite

Jamia Masjid, Jammu

…….Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, Advocate

Versus

Detailing Devils India Pvt.

Ltd., A Company

incorporated under the

Companies Act 2013 and

having its Registered Office

at D-50, Sector 2 Noida,

Uttar Pradesh India -

201301 through its

Director Mr Rajat Ahooja.

……Respondent(s)

Through: Mr., Asav Rajan, Advocate

Mr. Ayjaz Lone, Advocate

Mr. Kashish Chadha,

Advocate

Mr. Devang Shrotriya,

Advocate.

Page 2 RFA No.44/2025

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

(Rajnesh Oswal-J)

1. This civil first appeal is addressed by the appellant, as

being an aggrieved plaintiff, against an order dated

31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional

District Judge, (Commercial Court), Jammu (hereinafter

to be referred to as “the trial court”) in a civil suit titled

“PKR Partnership Firm v. Detailing Devils India Pvt.

Ltd.” wherein, in response to an application filed by the

respondent/defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of the

Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, the learned trial

court has rejected the appellant's plaint for failure to

comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation as

envisaged under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts

Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”).

2. Before coming to deal with the appellant’s appeal in the

context of challenge to the impugned order, a brief

resume of the civil suit preferred by the appellant needs

to be put in place here in next.

3. By virtue of a Franchise Agreement dated 25.07.2020

made by and between the respondent and the appellant,

Page 3 RFA No.44/2025

the respondent came to constitute the appellant as a

‘franchisee’ with respect to opening and operation of an

outlet (the unit, franchised unit and franchised business)

at one location only which was Detailing Devils, Jammu,

Malik Market, Bye Pass Road, Opposite Jamia Masjid,

Pin Code-180015.

4. The franchise so granted in favour of the appellant by the

respondent was a non-exclusive one with initial term and

tenure of the Franchise Agreement being three years to

expire on 3

rd anniversary of date of launch of the singular

outlet for which the franchise was being granted. There

was a clause for renewal of franchise at the option of the

appellant as a franchisee and the renewal period was also

for a period of two years provided at the time of renewal,

the appellant paid a non -refundable renewal fee of

Rs. 50,000/- by exercising option of renewal with a prior

notice of six months period to be first served by the

appellant to the respondent.

5. Thus, by the making date of franchise agreement being

25.07.2020, said agreement on its own was to expire on

24.07.2023.

6. The respondent, by way of legal notice dated 29.08.2023

came to terminate the Franchise Agreement by putting

the appellant on a caveat to desist from claiming itself to

Page 4 RFA No.44/2025

be the franchisee of the respondent with immediate

effect.

7. The said legal notice came to be responded by the

appellant by a reply to the legal notice dated 12.09.2023

wherein the appellant came to notify the respondent that

in the face of termination of the franchise agreement, the

appellant is entitled to claim an amount of Rupees Fifty

Lacs (Rs. 50,00,000/-) on account of investment made by

it. The appellant further came to seek renewal of the

Franchise Agreement for next two years.

8. It is in this backdrop that a purported cause of action

was availed by the appellant to file a civil suit on

28.10.2023 before the learned Principal District Judge,

Jammu wherefrom it came to be transferred to the court

of learned Additional District Judge (Commercial Court),

Jammu.

9. In its civil suit, the appellant claimed a decree for

compensation of amount of Rupees Fifty Lacs

(Rs. 50,00,000/-) and also a declaration with respect to

termination notice dated 29.08.2023 being illegal, null

and void and inoperative with mandatory injunction

directing the respondent to allow the appellant to operate

the franchise agreement and perpetually restraining the

Page 5 RFA No.44/2025

respondent from allocating the franchise to any other

person in Jammu province.

10. The aforesaid civil suit of the appellant was also

accompanied with an application for grant of temporary

injunction of staying the operation of the termination

notice and also restraining the respondent from

allocating the franchise agreement to any other person.

The appellant also sought an interim relief so as to

continue to conduct the business as per franchise

agreement.

11. The respondent from its end came forward with an

application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC by citing

the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of M/s Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd and Ors Vs.

Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. [(2022) 10 SCC 1]. In its

said application, the respondent came to assert that the

appellant identifies and introduces itself as a firm acting

through its partner Rajneesh Jamwal but without any

certificate of registration of partnership being on record

thereby rendering the suit liable to be rejected. The

respondent further cited that as per the terms and

conditions of the franchise agreement, the jurisdiction to

adjudicate the dispute only vested with the courts in

Delhi. In addition the respondents stated that the suit

Page 6 RFA No.44/2025

reliefs are cognizable by the Commercial Court in terms

of the Commercial Courts Act, 201 5 whereas the

appellant has nomenclated its suit as a civil suit before a

civil court of original jurisdiction.

12. The appellant from its end came forward with a reply to

the said application of the respondent. The appellant

intended to salvage the maintainability of the suit by

citing that in terms of Section 12-A of the Act in the event

of plaintiff seeking urgent relief, exemption is available

for maintaining the civil suit without initiating pre-

litigation mediation.

13. In this regard, the appellant also came to rely upon

M/s Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India (supra) by referring to its paras

54 and 72. In addition, the appellant also cited Ganga

Taro Vazirani Vs. Deepak Raheja, 202 0 SCC Online

Bombay 9015 to impress the point that section 12-A of

the Act is a procedural provision and when an urgent

relief is sought in a civil suit, the procedure under

Section 12-A of the Act needs not to be undergone.

14. The appellant further came in response to refer to a fact

that it received a notice from the Secretary North DLSA

Delhi by reference to a pre-mediation application filed by

the respondent before the North District Legal Services

Page 7 RFA No.44/2025

Authority, Rohini Courts, Delhi and apprised the said

Authority about the fact of civil suit having been filed by

the appellant against the respondent which resulted in

closure of the pre-mediation process at the end of the

North District Legal Services Authority.

15. In addition, the respondent also filed written statement

dated 18.11.2023 to the plaint.

16. It is said application of the respondent which came to

earn its adjudication in the form of impugned order dated

31.07.2025 from the trial court whereby the suit of the

appellant was held non-maintainable being in breach of

mandate of section 12-A of the Act and, thus, rejecting

the plaint as per M/s Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd

judgment.

17. The learned trial court came to pose a solitary question

for its consideration as to whether statutory pre-litigation

mediation under Section 12-A of the Act is mandatory

and in this regard referred itself to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme court of India in the case of M/s Patil

Automation Pvt. Ltd & Ors Vs. Rakheja Engineers

Private Ltd.

18. The appellant challenges the impugned order primarily

on the ground that the main suit was accompanied by an

application for urgent ad-interim relief so, therefore, its

Page 8 RFA No.44/2025

suit was maintainable without suffering any disability by

reference to section 12-A of the Act.

19. The appellant contends that owing to this manifest

urgency, the requirement of pre-institution mediation

under Section 12-A of the Act was fully exempted.

20. It is submitted that the learned trial court erred in law by

ignoring settled Apex Court’s precedents which mandate

that courts must deeply examine the pleadings as a

whole to determine if an urgent interim relief is genuinely

made out so as to dispense with mediation.

21. Precisely stated, the contention of the appellant is that

the learned trial court failed to appreciate the true import

of the interim relief sought which squarely qualifies as

'urgent interim relief' within the meaning of Section 12-A

of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the suit was accompanied by an application for

interim relief, which clearly established the urgent nature

of the matter. Consequently, the Trial Court could not

have invoked Section 12-A of the Act to reject the plaint.

22. To buttress its argument, the appellant relies on the

Hon’ble Supreme Court's judgment in “ Novenco

Building and Industry vs. Xero Energy Engineering

Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Anr”, 2025 SCC Online SC 2278

to contend that a prayer for temporary injunction is

Page 9 RFA No.44/2025

sufficient to demonstrate the urgency required to bypass

pre-institution mediation.

23. On the other hand, Mr. Asav Rajan, learned counsel

representing the respondent, appearing and arguing

virtually, contended that a bare reading of the plaint

reveals a feigned urgency designed solely to bypass the

mandatory pre-institution mediation required by Section

12-A of the Act. He further argued that the appellant’s

own conduct belies any claim of urgency; the appellant

remained completely indolent, took no steps to seek a

renewal of the franchise agreement under the relevant

renewal clause, as such, the learned Trial Court has

rightly passed the order impugned.

24. Heard and perused the record.

25. The appellant claims that it had consistently paid the

contractually mandated royalties and had communicated

its intent to renew the franchise. However, on

29.08.2023, the respondent issued the termination

notice. The appellant avers that this notice was issued

without any prior warning or opportunity to respond to

the allegations, thereby demonstrating mala fide.

Denying any breach of the franchise terms, the appellant

filed the suit before the learned trial court on 28.10.2023

for the following reliefs:

Page 10 RFA No.44/2025

“a) Civil Suit for recovery of Rs.50,00,000/-;

b) Suit for Declaration declaring Termination Notice

dated 29.08.2023 as illegal, null and void

inoperative and non-est in the eyes of law;

c) Mandatory Injunction directing the defendant to

allow the plaintiff to operate the Franchisee

Agreement dated 25.07.020;

d) Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the

defendant from allotting the Franchisee to any other

person in Jammu Province.”

26. The respondent has pleaded that because the dispute is a

commercial one, the suit is barred due to non-compliance

with Section 12-A of the Act relying on the Hon’ble

Supreme Court's ruling in “M/s Patil Automation Pvt.

Ltd. & Ors v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd” [(2022) 10

SCC 1].

27. The appellant has countered that the requirement of pre-

institution mediation stands dispensed and waived

because the suit explicitly sought an urgent interim

relief.

28. Disagreeing with the appellant, the learned trial court

allowed the respondent's application and rejected the

plaint on the ground that the mandate of Section 12-A

had not been followed.

29. It is the contention of the appellant that the submission

of an application for temporary injunction per se

evidenced the urgency of the relief prayed for, thereby

exempting the suit from the threshold requirement of

Page 11 RFA No.44/2025

pre-institution mediation envisioned by Section 12-A of

the Act.

30. In M/s Patil Automation Pvt Ltd and others v.

Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., [(2022) 10 SCC 1], the

Hon’ble Apex Court has held :

“94. On a consideration of the scheme of Orders 4, 5

and 7CPC, we arrive at the following conclusions:

94.1. A suit is commenced by presentation of a

plaint. The date of the presentation in terms of

Section 3(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is the date of

presentation for the purpose of the said Act. By

virtue of Order 4 Rule 1(3), institution of the plaint,

however, is complete only when the plaint is in

conformity with the requirement of Order 6 and

Order 7.

94.2. When the court decides the question as to

issue of summons under Order 5 Rule 1, what the

court must consider is whether a suit has been duly

instituted.

94.3. Order 7 Rule 11 does not provide that the

court is to discharge its duty of rejecting the plaint

only on an application. Order 7 Rule 11 is, in fact,

silent about any such requirement. Since summon is

to be issued in a duly instituted suit, in a case where

the plaint is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d), the

stage begins at that time when the court can reject

the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11. No doubt it would

take a clear case where the court is satisfied. The

Court has to hear the plaintiff before it invokes its

power besides giving reasons under Order 7 Rule 12.

In a clear case, where on allegations in the suit, it is

found that the suit is barred by any law, as would be

the case, where the plaintiff in a suit under the Act

does not plead circumstances to take his case out of

the requirement of Section 12-A, the plaint should

be rejected without issuing summons. Undoubtedly,

on issuing summons it will be always open to the

defendant to make an application as well under

Order 7 Rule 11. In other words, the power under

Order 7 Rule 11 is available to the court to be

exercised suo motu.

xx xxxxxxxxxxxx

113. Having regard to all these circumstances, we

would dispose of the matters in the following

manner:

113.1. We declare that Section 12-A of the Act is

mandatory and hold that any suit instituted

Page 12 RFA No.44/2025

violating the mandate of Section 12 -A must be

visited with rejection of the plaint under Order 7

Rule 11. This power can be exercised even suo motu

by the court as explained earlier in the judgment.

We, however, make this declaration effective from

20-8-2022 so that stakeholders concerned become

sufficiently informed.

113.2. Still further, we however direct that in case

plaints have been already rejected and no steps have

been taken within the period of limitation, the

matter cannot be reopened on the basis of this

declaration. Still further, if the order of rejection of

the plaint has been acted upon by filing a fresh suit,

the declaration of prospective effect will not avail the

plaintiff.

113.3. Finally, if the plaint is filed violating Section

12-A after the jurisdictional High Court has declared

Section 12-A mandatory also, the plaintiff will not be

entitled to the relief.

31. In Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi , [(2024) 5 SCC

815], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“10. We are of the opinion that when a plaint is filed

under the CC Act, with a prayer for an urgent

interim relief, the commercial court should examine

the nature and the subject-matter of the suit, the

cause of action, and the prayer for interim relief. The

prayer for urgent interim relief should not be a

disguise or mask to wriggle out of and get over

Section 12-A of the CC Act. The facts and

circumstances of the case have to be considered

holistically from the standpoint of the plaintiff. Non-

grant of interim relief at the ad interim stage, when

the plaint is taken up for registration/admission and

examination, will not justify dismissal of the

commercial suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code;

at times, interim relief is granted after issuance of

notice. Nor can the suit be dismissed under Order 7

Rule 11 of the Code, because the interim relief, post

the arguments, is denied on merits and on

examination of the three principles, namely : (i)

prima facie case, (ii) irreparable harm and injury,

and (iii) balance of convenience. The fact that the

court issued notice and/or granted interim stay may

Page 13 RFA No.44/2025

indicate that the court is inclined to entertain the

plaint.

11. Having stated so, it is difficult to agree with the

proposition that the plaintiff has the absolute choice

and right to paralyse Section 12-A of the CC Act by

making a prayer for urgent interim relief.

Camouflage and guise to bypass the statutory

mandate of pre-litigation mediation should be

checked when deception and falsity is apparent or

established. The proposition that the commercial

courts do have a role, albeit a limited one, should be

accepted, otherwise it would be up to the plaintiff

alone to decide whether to resort to the procedure

under Section 12-A of the CC Act. An “absolute and

unfettered right” approach is not justified if the pre-

institution mediation under Section 12-A of the CC

Act is mandatory, as held by this Court in Patil

Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja

Engineers (P) Ltd., (2022) 10 SCC 1 : (2023) 1 SCC

(Civ) 545] .

12. The words “contemplate any urgent interim relief”

in Section 12-A(1) of the CC Act, with reference to

the suit, should be read as conferring power on the

court to be satisfied. They suggest that the suit must

“contemplate”, which means the plaint, documents

and facts should show and indicate the need for an

urgent interim relief. This is the precise and limited

exercise that the commercial courts will undertake,

the contours of which have been explained in the

earlier paragraph(s). This will be sufficient to keep in

check and ensure that the legislative object/intent

behind the enactment of Section 12-A of the CC Act

is not defeated.”

32. In M/s Dhanbad Fuels Private Ltd. v. Union of India,

[(2025) 9 SCC 424 ], the Hon’ble Apex Court has

observed as under:

“71. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we

summarise our findings as under:

Page 14 RFA No.44/2025

71.1. The decision of this Court in Patil

Automation [Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja

Engineers (P) Ltd., lays down the correct position of

law as regards Section 12-A of the 2015 Act by

holding it to be mandatory in nature.

71.2. As held in para 104 of the decision in Patil

Automation , the declaration of the mandatory

nature of Section 12-A of the 2015 Act relates back

to the date of the amending Act.

71.3. As held in para 113.1 of the decision in Patil

Automation, any suit which is instituted under the

2015 Act without complying with Section 12 -A is

liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.

However, this declaration applies prospectively to

suits instituted on or after 20-8-2022.

71.4. A suit which contemplates an urgent interim

relief may be filed under the 2015 Act without first

resorting to mediation as prescribed under Section

12-A of the 2015 Act.

71.5. Unlike Section 80(2)CPC, leave of the court is

not required to be obtained before filing a suit

without complying with Section 12-A of the 2015

Act.

71.6. The test for “urgent interim relief” is if on an

examination of the nature and the subject-matter of

the suit and the cause of action, the prayer of urgent

interim relief by the plaintiff could be said to be

contemplable when the matter is seen from the

standpoint of the plaintiff.

71.7. The Courts must also be wary of the fact that

the urgent interim relief must not be merely an

unfounded excuse by the plaintiff to bypass the

mandatory requirement of Section 12-A of the 2015

Act.

71.8. Even if the urgent interim relief ultimately

comes to be denied, the suit of the plaintiff may be

proceeded with without compliance with Section 12-

A if the test for “urgent interim relief” is satisfied

notwithstanding the actual outcome on merits.

71.9. Suits instituted without complying with

Section 12-A of the 2015 Act prior to 20-8-2022

cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 on the

ground of non-compliance with Section 12-A unless

Page 15 RFA No.44/2025

they fall within the exceptions stipulated in paras

113.2 and 113.3 of the decision in Patil Automation.

71.10. In suits instituted without complying with

Section 12-A of the 2015 Act prior to 20-8-2022

which are pending adjudication before the trial

court, the court shall keep the suit in abeyance and

refer the parties to time-bound mediation in

accordance with Section 12-A of the 2015 Act if an

objection is raised by the defendant by filing an

application under Order 7 Rule 11, or in cases where

any of the parties expresses an intent to resolve the

dispute by mediation.”

33. In Novenco Building and Industry v. Xero Energy

Engineering Solutions Private Ltd. and another

reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Sc 2278 , relied upon by

learned counsel for appellant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

has laid down guidelines for the Trial Courts for rejection

of a plaint while considering the compliance of Section

12-A of the Act. The relevant paragraph is extracted as

under:

“20. The legal test distilled from the aforesaid

decisions for the purposes of rejection of the plaint

and for adjudication of interim relief can be culled

out as follows:

(i) Section 12A mandatorily requires pre-institution

mediation for commercial suits, non-compliance of

which would ordinarily render the plaint

institutionally defective.

(ii) A plaintiff can be exempted from the requirement

of Section 12A only when the plaint and the

documents attached with it clearly show a real need

for urgent interim intervention. A wholesome reading

of the plaint and the material annexed to the plaint

ought to disclose the need for urgent relief.

(iii) The court must look at the plaint, pleadings and

supporting documents to decide whether urgent

interim relief is genuinely contemplated. The court

may also look for immediacy of the peril, irreparable

harm, risk of losing rights/assets, statutory

timelines, perishable subject-matter, or where delay

would render eventual relief ineffective.

Page 16 RFA No.44/2025

(iv) A proforma or anticipatory prayer for urgent

relief used as a device to skip mediation will be

ignored and the court can require the parties to

comply with Section 12A of the Act.

(v) The court is not concerned with the merits of the

urgent relief, but if the relief sought seems to be

plausibly urgent from the standpoint of the plaintiff

the court can dispense with the requirement under

Section 12A of the Act.”

34. The legal position discernible from the various judgments

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited hereinabove is that

the mandate of pre-institution mediation under Section

12-A of the Act is absolute and compulsory. Where a

plaintiff fails to adhere to this statutory mandate with

respect to institution of suit that does not contemplate

urgent interim relief, the plaint is liable to be rejected

under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. In determining

whether an urgent interim relief is indeed involved and

warranted, a court is supposed to examine specific facts

pleaded and the documents appended to the plaint for

adopting a holistic approach from the plaintiff’s

perspective. Simultaneously, a duty is cast upon the

court to ensure that the mandate of Section 12-A of the

Act is not bypassed through crafty drafting or the mere

inclusion of a prayer for urgent interim relief. The

urgency contemplated by the suit must be real and

substantial, rather than superfluous or cosmetic.

Page 17 RFA No.44/2025

35. Simply stated, a prayer for interim relief must not be a

camouflage to evade the statutory obligation of

mediation.

36. We shall now examine whether the appellant has

successfully satisfied the parameters laid down by the

Apex Court as adverted to hereinabove.

37. At the risk of repetition, we reiterate that the principal

reliefs sought by the appellant in the underlying suit

include a mandatory injunction directing the respondent

to allow the appellant to operate the outlet in accordance

with franchise agreement dated 25.07.2020, alongside a

permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the

respondent from allotting the said franchise to any third

party within the Jammu Province.

38. Pursuant to the franchise agreement dated 25.07.2020,

the term of operation for franchise unit was fixed at three

years from the date of the outlet's launch. Although the

respondent terminated the appellant’s franchise vide the

termination notice dated 29.08.2023, the record indicates

that prior to that date the appellant had never served any

prior notice upon the franchisor (the respondent) seeking

to renew the operation period of the franchise unit. In

this context, clause 3.2 of the franchisee agreement is

extracted as under:

Page 18 RFA No.44/2025

“3.2Franchisee may at its option renew this

franchisee for additional period of Two (02) years

provided that at the time of the renewal,

Franchisee need to pay a non refundable

renewal fee of Rs.50,000 (fifty Thousand) which

is Exclusive of the applicable GST at the time of

renewal of this agreement:

3.2.1Franchisee gives Franchisor notice of such

election to renew not less than six (6) months

nor more than twelve (12) months prior to the

end of the initial term;”

39. Under Clause 3.2.1, the appellant was contractually

obligated to notify the respondent of its election to renew

between six and twelve months’ window period prior to

the expiry of the franchise’s initial term. No documentary

evidence has been produced to show that any such notice

was issued. In fact, learned counsel for the appellant has

fairly conceded that no such requisite notice of election to

renew was ever served from its end to the respondent.

40. If the appellant was genuinely interested in continuing

the franchise business, it should have timeously

exercised its option under the franchise agreement.

Instead, it is only after receiving the termination notice

that the appellant manufactured a superficial urgency in

the plaint to bypass the statutory mandate through an

application for interim relief.

41. We have no hesitation in holding that the appellant's

failure to exercise its renewal option under Clause 3.2.1

of the franchise agreement disentitles it to claim any

Page 19 RFA No.44/2025

urgent interim relief against the termination notice. In

fact, the plaint explicitly seeks the recovery of Rs. 50.00

Lakhs as damages for illegal termination. Given that the

appellant’s primary remedy resolves into a quantifiable

monetary claim, the injunctive reliefs sought are nothing

but an afterthought, designed to manufacture an illusion

of urgency solely to bypass the pre-institution mediation

mandated by Section 12-A of the Act.

42. Having examined the impugned order passed by the

learned Trial Court, we find no error or illegality therein

warranting our interference. The appeal, being completely

devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

(Rahul Bharti) (Rajnesh Oswal)

Judge Judge

Srinagar

04.06.2026

Ajaz Ahmad, Secy

Whether approved for reporting? Yes