Evidence not required for deciding Order 7 Rule 11 CPC plea under Section 12A: Raj HC

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that while deciding an application for rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is required to confine itself strictly to the averments contained in the plaint and cannot permit parties to lead evidence. The High Court held that no interpretation of its earlier directions could compel a commercial court to travel beyond the plaint while examining whether a suit is barred by law, including on the ground of non-compliance with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 5.

The court further held that where a suit seeks urgent interim relief, the bar under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act does not apply, and the mere fact that there may be delay in institution of the suit cannot, by itself, negate urgency when the alleged infringement is continuing. The High Court observed that deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC without recording evidence is in consonance with settled law laid down by the Supreme Court.

These observations were made by Justice Anuroop Singhi while dismissing two connected writ petitions filed by Smt. Shabbo, challenging orders dated October 4, 2025 and October 16, 2025 passed by the Commercial Court, Kota, in a pending commercial suit relating to infringement and passing off of trademark.

The respondent had instituted a civil suit against the petitioner for infringement and passing off of trademark, permanent injunction, damages and rendition of accounts, along with an application seeking temporary injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC contending that the suit was barred by law due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Commercial Court dismissed the application, following which the petitioner approached the High Court earlier. By previous orders, the High Court granted liberty to seek framing of a preliminary issue on the effect of non-compliance with Section 12A. In compliance, the Commercial Court framed the issue and subsequently held that since the suit contemplated urgent interim relief, Section 12A was not attracted and its non-compliance had no bearing on the maintainability of the suit.

Challenging these findings, the petitioner again approached the High Court contending that the preliminary issue could not have been decided without allowing parties to lead evidence and that the prayer for interim relief was only a device to bypass mandatory mediation.

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the High Court held that an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC must be decided solely on the basis of the plaint and that leading of evidence is impermissible at that stage. The court relied upon multiple Supreme Court decisions, including Eldeco Housing and Industries Ltd. vs Ashok Vidharthi, Dahiben vs Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali and Karam Singh vs Amarjit Singh, to reiterate that the defence of the defendant and disputed questions of fact cannot be examined while considering rejection of plaint.

The High Court further noted that the Commercial Court had correctly applied the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Novenco Building and Industry A/S vs Xero Energy Engineering Solutions Pvt. Ltd., holding that in cases of continuing intellectual property infringement, urgency must be assessed in the context of ongoing injury and that delay alone does not defeat a prayer for interim relief.

Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, the High Court declined to interfere and dismissed both writ petitions. The court clarified that the Commercial Court had duly complied with earlier directions and that deciding the issue without evidence did not amount to defiance of those directions.

Accordingly, both writ petitions were dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Case Title
Smt. Shabbo vs M/s Sajni Mehndi Product

Connected Case
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17461/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench

Bench
Justice Anuroop Singhi

Date of Order
January 27, 2026

Advocates
For the petitioner: Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma with Mr. Manan Sharma
For the respondent: Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Shefali Sharma