Territorial jurisdiction on plaint averments and urgent interim relief under Section 12A saved the commercial suit from rejection.

On a demurrer under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, territorial jurisdiction is assessed on the plaint averments and accompanying documents, not on disputed evidence; because the plaint alleged clandestine sales, online solicitation, advertisements in Delhi, and business activity within the forum, return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction was unsustainable. Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act applies only where the suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief; since the plaint itself sought urgent interim relief, rejection for non-compliance with Section 12A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed, the cross-objection failed, and the suit was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaint was liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of territorial jurisdiction. (ii) Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 despite the suit seeking urgent interim relief.

Issue (i): Whether the plaint was liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: An objection to territorial jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 10 CPC is decided on a demurrer by accepting the plaint averments as true. The court at that stage is concerned only with the plaint and the documents filed with it, and not with proof of the pleaded facts. The plaint pleaded clandestine sales, online solicitation, circulation of advertisements within Delhi, and carrying on of business within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If those averments are accepted as correct, territorial jurisdiction would be made out.

Conclusion: The return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaint was liable to be rejected for non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 despite the suit seeking urgent interim relief.

Analysis: Section 12A bars institution of a commercial suit only where the suit does not contemplate urgent interim relief. The applicability of Section 12A is determined from the plaint and the reliefs sought, and no separate application for exemption is required where urgent interim relief is pleaded. The mandatory character of Section 12A applies to suits that do not contemplate such relief, but not to suits framed as seeking urgent interim relief.

Conclusion: The plaint was not liable to be rejected under Section 12A, and the cross-objection on that ground failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the cross-objection was dismissed, and the order returning the plaint was set aside while the suit was permitted to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: For Order VII Rule 10 CPC, territorial jurisdiction must be tested on the plaint as pleaded on a demurrer, and Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not apply to a suit that on its face contemplates urgent interim relief.

---