Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohit Sadana vs Vijay Kumar Goyal on 16 June, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
1 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 16th OF JUNE, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 169 of 2024
MOHIT SADANA
Versus
VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL
Appearance:
Shri Prakash Chandra Chandil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sameer Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
This civil revision has been filed against the order dated 21/02/2024
passed by Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shivpuri in RCSA
No.120/2022, by which application filed by petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11,
CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that
respondent filed a suit for eviction from the suit shop. The petitioner filed an
application under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC on the ground that since trade and
business is being carried out by petitioner from the suit premises, therefore in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
2 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
view of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short
“the Act”), jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and thus the Civil Court should
have rejected the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. To buttress his
contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Calcutta
High Court in the case of Maharshi Commerce Limited Vs. Rajiv R. Balani
& Ors decided on 10/11/2022 in CS/3/2019 (IA No. GA/6/2022).
3. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for the
respondent. It is submitted that merely because the suit for eviction from the
suit shop has been instituted on various grounds as mentioned in Section 12 of
the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the dispute would not
become a commercial dispute. To buttress his contention, counsel for
respondent has relied upon judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court
of Gujarat in the case of Ujwala Raje Gaekwar Vs. Hemaben Achyut Shah
and Ors reported in 2016 0 Supreme (Guj) 1202 and
order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Bhopal
Fracture Hospital and others Vs. Savitri Devi Vijjaywargiya decided on
15/04/2024 in CR No. 24/2024 (Principal Seat).
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for petitioner in the
case of Maharshi Commerce Limited (Supra) is concerned, it is fairly
conceded by counsel for petitioner that the said judgment is subject matter of
SLP which is pending before the Supreme Court and there is an interim order.
Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that once there
is an interim order in SLP arising out of Maharshi Commerce Limited
(Supra), then it would not be appropriate for this Court to rely upon the
reasoning assigned in the said order.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
3 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
6. “Commercial dispute” has been defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act.
Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act provides for “agreements relating to immovable
property used exclusively in trade or commerce”.
In the present case, petitioner, who is tenant in the suit shop, is carrying out
business from the tenanted premises.
7. “Specified value” has been defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act,
which provides that “specified value in relation to commercial dispute, shall
mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in
accordance with Section 12, which shall not be less than 3 lakh rupees, or such
higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.”
8. Section 12 of the Act reads as under:-
12. Determination of Specified Value – (1)The Specified Value
of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or
application shall be determined in the following manner:–
(a)where the relief sought in a suit or application is for recovery of
money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit or application
inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the date of filing of the
suit or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account
for determining such Specified Value;
(b)where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to
movable property or to a right therein, the market value of the
movable property as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or
application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for
determining such Specified Value;
(c)where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to
immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the
immovable property, as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or
application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for
determining Specified Value; and
(d)where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to
any other intangible right, the market value of the said rights as
estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for
determining Specified Value; ***Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:122224 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
***
(2)The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim, if any as set
out in the statement of claim and the counterclaim, if any, in an
arbitration of a commercial dispute shall be the basis for
determining whether such arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction
of a Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division or
Commercial Court, as the case may be.
(3)No appeal or civil revision application under section 115 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the case may be, shall lie from
an order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court finding
that it has jurisdiction to hear a commercial dispute under this Act.
9. In order to find out as to whether a dispute is a commercial dispute or
not, one has to conjointly read Sections 2(1)(c)(vii), Section 2(1)(i) and Section
12 of the Act. From a plain reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that only
suits, appeals or applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified
value are to be tried by the Commercial Court. Merely because the suit shop is
being used for carrying out business or trade, the suit for eviction from the suit
shop would not fall within the definition of commercial dispute of specified
value.
10. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ujwala Raje
Gaekwar (Supra) has held that merely because the movable property in
question is going to be used or is being used exclusively in trade or commerce,
the dispute does not become a commercial dispute as defined under Section
2(1)(c) of the Act. If the object and purpose of establishment of Commercial
Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the
High Court are considered, then it is clear that the establishment of Commercial
Courts had become necessary on account of inordinate delays and to ensure
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
5 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
fast disposal of high value commercial disputes to provide assurance to
domestic and foreign investors.
11. The Supreme Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises
Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another, reported in (2020) 15 SCC
585 has held as under:-
“13. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would
however, contend that a strict interpretation as in the case of
taxing statutes would not be appropriate in the instant case
where the issue relates to jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned
Senior Advocate has referred to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons with which the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is
enacted so as to provide speedy disposal of high value
commercial disputes so as to create the positive image to the
investors world about the independent and responsive Indian
legal system. Hence, he contends that a purposive interpretation
be made. It is contended that a wider purport and meaning is to
be assigned while entertaining the suit and considering the
dispute to be a commercial dispute. Having taken note of the
submission we feel that the very purpose for which the CC Act
of 2015 has been enacted would be defeated if every other suit
merely because it is filed before the Commercial Court is
entertained. This is for the reason that the suits which are not
actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed merely
because of the high value and with the intention of seeking early
disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the
genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained
by the Commercial Courts as intended by the lawmakers. In
commercial disputes as defined a special procedure is provided
for a class of litigation and a strict procedure will have to be
followed to entertain only that class of litigation in that
jurisdiction. If the same is strictly interpreted it is not as if those
excluded will be non-suited without any remedy. The excluded
class of litigation will in any event be entertained in the
ordinary civil courts wherein the remedy has always existed.
14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and
entertain only disputes which actually answers the definitionSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:122226 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
“commercial disputes” as provided under the Act. In the instant
case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the
parties refers to the nature of the immovable property being
exclusively used for trade or commerce as on the date of the
agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the plaint.
Further the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the
mortgage deed which is in the nature of specific performance of
the terms of Memorandum of Understanding without reference
to nature of the use of the immovable property in trade or
commerce as on the date of the suit. Therefore, if all these
aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that in the
present facts the High Court was justified in its conclusion
arrived through the order dated 1-3-2019 [K.S. Infraspace
LLP v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine
Guj 1926] impugned herein. The Commercial Court shall
therefore return the plaint indicating a date for its presentation
before the Court having jurisdiction.”
It has also been held that a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of
the Commercial Courts Act Act, 2015 and the various amendments to the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 and insertion of new rules to that Code applicable to
suits of commercial disputes show that the said Act has been enacted for the
purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial disputes. A
purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and various
amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the
provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are given
a liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division
of Courts viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of
commercial disputes, will be defeated. If one takes a closer look at the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, words such as “early” and “speedy” have
been incorporated and reiterated. The object shall be fulfilled only if the
provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not hampered by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
7 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
usual procedural delays plaguing our traditional legal system. Thus, a dispute
relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it
becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)
(c) of the Commercial Courts Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable
property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. The conclusion arrived at
herein, that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts
Act, the immovable property must be “used exclusively” or “being used
exclusively” in trade or commerce, is agreed to. The words “used exclusively in
trade or commerce” are to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used”
denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be
used” or “to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation
would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure for deciding
the commercial disputes. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show
that at the time when the agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the
property was being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the
dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the
Commercial Courts Act. Merely because the property is likely to be used in
relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract the
jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
12. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that merely because suit
shop is being used for running business, the question of eviction from said suit
shop would not become commercial dispute.
Similar view has also been taken by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of M/s Bhopal Fracture Hospital (Supra).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12222
8 C.R. No. 169 of 2024
13. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is of considered opinion that the trial Court did not commit any mistake
by rejecting the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
14. The civil revision fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 23-06-2025
10:53:39 AM