JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr J. Abreu Lobo for the Petitioner and Mr R. G. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate who appears along with Ms K. Betquecar for the Respondents No.2 to 18, 19, 21 and 22 to 31.

2. Mr Lobo states that service is complete in this matter. On 16.03.2023, an order was made placing this matter for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. Accordingly, Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately.

4. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.06.2019 by which the Trial Court allowed an application filed by defendants no.2 to 18 in the Suit and transferred the Suit to the Commercial Court at Margao. The Trial Court held that the dispute between the parties was a “commercial dispute” as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) and Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (said Act).

5. From the perusal of the plaint in the Suit, it is evident that the Suit is for specific performance of the agreement dated 01.02.2000 relating to immovable property. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v/s. K. S. Infraspace LLP and Anr. - (2020) 15 SCC 585, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for a dispute to be a commercial dispute, the agreement between the parties must refer to immovable property used/ used exclusively in trade or commerce. The word “used” occurring in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ ready for use” or “ likely to be used” or “ to be used”. Merely because the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be a ground to attract the jurisdiction of Commercial Court. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the object of the Commercial Courts Act about the speedy disposal of commercial disputes.

6. In the above regard, useful reference can be made to the observations in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the opinion expressed by A. S. Bopanna, J. and paragraphs 36, 37, 39 and 42 of the concurring opinion expressed by R. Banumathi, J.

7. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the opinion expressed by A. S. Bopanna, J. read as follows:

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 law makers. 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 definition “commercial disputes” as provided under the Ac