ORDER :

1. This application under Section 24 of CPC is filed by the petitioners seeking transfer of Commercial Suit No. 15 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, to the Court of Special Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam, on the ground that the Special Court for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioners are the defendants in Commercial Suit No. 15 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Vijayawada. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said Suit. He has filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,47,32,525/- from the defendants in the said suit. The petitioners, who are the defendants, have taken a plea in the said suit that the Commercial Court in Vijayawada has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said suit. According to the defendants, the property relating to the said transaction is situate in Santhabommali, Srikakulam District, and the document in question, which is relating to the said property is the basis for the suit claim and it was executed between both the parties in Santhabommali and as such only the Commercial Court in Visakhapatnam got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff in the said suit has taken a plea that as the Head Office of the 1st defendant – APIIC is situate in Vijayawada, under Section 20 of CPC, the suit can be instituted where the office of the said APIIC is situate and as such the suit is instituted in the Commercial Court of Vijayawada.

4. The said issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court has to be decided by the trial Court in the final adjudication of the said suit. It is brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing the petition and as per the plea taken by the respondents herein in the counter that the entire trial of the suit has been concluded and the matter posted for hearing arguments. Therefore, the suit is now at the fag end of the hearing which is ripe for disposal. Since a plea relating to lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court, Vijayawada, was already taken, the same has to be decided by the trial Court and a finding has to be given to that effect. In this context, it is relevant to note that Order VII Rule 10 of CPC also envisages that at any stage of the suit, the Court can return the plaint to present the same in the proper Court. Therefore, as noticed supra, since a plea has been taken in the trial Court relating to the said territorial jurisdiction, the same has to be decided by the trial Court itself. If the trial Court finds that it has got territorial jurisdiction, it has to further proceed with the suit according to law and if it finds that it has no territorial jurisdiction, then the trial Court has to follow the procedure contemplated under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. But on that ground, the petitioners now cannot seek transfer of the said suit from the Commercial Court of Vijayawada to Commercial Court of Visakhapatnam. It is a disputed question of fact which has to be decided by the trial Court after considering the evidence before it and also Section 20 of CPC which is invoked by the plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that Section 15(2) and 15(5) of the Commercial Courts, Act, 2015, (for short “the Act”) applies to the present facts of the case and the suit has to be necessarily transferred to Commercial Court of Visakhapatnam. Section 15 is part of Chapter V of the Act. It deals with transfer of pending suits. A reading of the said provision makes it clear that only the suits which are pending in other Courts on the date when the said Commercial Courts Act, 2015, came into force, are to be transferred to the Commercial Cour