IMPORTANT POINT
Execution petitions for amounts above specified values must be filed in Commercial Courts, as Principal District Judges lack jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act.

ORDER :

(R. Raghunandan Rao, J.)

The learned Arbitrator appointed for resolution of the disputes between the petitioners and the sole respondent had passed an award in favour of the sole respondent for a sum of Rs.32,99,625/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. with costs to the sole respondent in Arbitration Case No.309 of 2014. The sole respondent sought execution of the said award by moving Arbitration Execution Petition No.151 of 2017 before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District.

2. The petitioners herein objected to the proceedings before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District on the ground that the execution petition had been filed to realize an amount of Rs.46,46,965/- and the same could not have been filed before the Learned Principal District Judge as it is only the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam which would have jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

3. The learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, by an order dated 31.01.2024 had held that the objection raised in relation to the jurisdiction is not maintainable as the limit for such jurisdiction to be conferred on the Commercial Court was Rs.1,00,00,000/-, while the amount which is sought to be recovered was only Rs.46,46,965/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said order of the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District, the petitioners have moved this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Heard Sri A. Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

6. Sri A. Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 12.09.2023 in C.R.P.No.2183 of 2022 & batch. The Division Bench considered the question of whether the execution petitions for recovery of amounts above the pecuniary limit set out under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 can be filed and maintained only before the Commercial Court or the Learned Principal District Judge. The Division Bench, after considering various judgments, was pleased to hold in the following manner:

“53) Therefore, the following conclusions are reached by ironing out the creases:

a) The Commercial Court alone is competent to execute decrees, which are above the specified value. The regular Civil Court will not have the jurisdiction to entertain such Execution Petitions with effect from 16.05.2019 in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

b) It is only the Commercial Court, Vijayawada or the Commercial Court at Visakhapatnam which can entertain the Execution Petitions if they are above the specified value in view of the G.O.Ms.No.78.

c) All orders passed after 16.05.2019 are orders passed by a coram non-judice. They suffer from an inherent lack of jurisdiction and they are held to be per se bad in law.

d) The pending E.P.No.13 of 2016 shall be transferred to the Commercial Court, Vijayawada, and both the parties are given liberty to start the proceedings afresh from the said date i.e., 16.05.2019.”

7. Sri A. Sai Naveen, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was amended in the year 2018 and pecuniary jurisdiction set out in Clause-2(1)(i) had been reduced from Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/- by Ordinance No.3 of 2018 which was subsequently replaced by Central Act No.28 of 2018 with effect from 03.05.2018. He would submit that in such circumstances, it is only the Commercial Court which would have jurisdiction over the matter and the proceedings pending before the Learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamundry would have to be set aside.

8. Sri Maheswara Rao Kunchem, the learned counsel for the sole respondent would submit that the proceedings in the execution petition have come to the stage of auction of the property of the petitioners and the only step left was finalization of the terms of the auction. He would further submit that the Arbitration Conciliation