ATMASTCO LTD Vs. MANDEEP KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-revisionist, who is the defendant in a suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff, has preferred the present civil revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the Impugned Order dtd. 5/8/2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, Delhi [Trial Court] dismissing its application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed in CS No. 92/2022 titled as 'Mandeep Kalra v. Atmastco Ltd. and Ors.' on the ground that the 'services' rendered by an advocate cannot fall under Sec. 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [CC Act].

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff Mr. Mandeep Kalra has instituted a suit against the petitioner/defendant company seeking recovery of outstanding Legal and Professional Fees on account of legal representation and services offered to the petitioner/defendant to the tune of Rs.18,56,511.00 along with pendente lite interest @2% per month from the date on which the right to receive the payment accrued until realisation.

(3.) Upon perusal of the plaint, the following facts and circumstances have come up for consideration before this Court: