Facts: The Respondent (Original Plaintiff) filed a commercial suit against the Appellant (Original Defendant), a US-based corporation, regarding defective pneumatic tubing. On 17th April, 2025, the Presiding Judge of Court No. 3, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, rejected the Respondent’s plea to register the suit without exhausting the mandatory pre-institution mediation required under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. While the said Judge was on leave for two weeks, the Respondent moved a Review Application before an alternate Judge (Court No. 2). The alternate Judge passed an ex-parte order on 25th April, 2025, setting aside the original order and allowing the suit's registration, citing urgency. The Appellant challenged this review order, contending it violated procedural mandates and jurisdictional limits.
Procedural Posture: This is a Commercial Appeal from Order filed in the Bombay High Court against the ex-parte review order dated 25th April, 2025, passed by the alternate Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi.
Issue: Whether an alternate Judge has the jurisdiction to review an order passed by a coordinate bench when the regular Judge is merely on short-term leave, and whether a review can be used to challenge the factual recording of submissions made before the original Court.
Holding: No, the alternate Judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the review, and the order was passed in violation of Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The High Court set aside the impugned order.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that under Order XLVII Rule 5 of the CPC, a review application must be heard by the same Judge who passed the original order if that Judge remains attached to the Court and is not precluded by an absence of at least two months. Here, the regular Judge was only on leave for two weeks, making the alternate Judge's intervention a "clear violation". Furthermore, the Court held that if a party claims a judgment incorrectly records their submissions, they must approach the "very judges who have made the record" while the matter is fresh. Finally, the Court observed that the alternate Judge essentially sat in appeal over a coordinate bench without providing proper legal grounds for review, conflating review power with appellate jurisdiction.