JUDGMENT

Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - The instant appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the judgment and order dated September 13, 2021 passed by a learned Single Judge in CS/190/2017.

2. By the order impugned the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff for transfer of the suit to the Commercial Division was rejected.

3. The plaint case is summarised hereunder as follows:

4. The second defendant purchased diverse quantities of newsprint from Newsprint Trading and Sales Corporation (for short 'NTSC') and Price and Pierce (asia Pacific) Private Limited (for short 'P&P). Second defendant entered into an agreement dated September 7, 2000 with NTSC and P&P for settlement of the outstanding dues amounting to Rs. 21.10 crores by way of sale of a property situated at Hyderabad. NTSC and P&P also assigned their right, title and interest in their claims against the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff/ appellant by an agreement dated June 12, 2002. Since the second defendant failed and neglected to execute the deed of conveyance in terms of the said agreements, the appellant filed a suit before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta being CS 486 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the earlier suit') for recovering all outstanding monies toward payment for supply of newsprint. The parties settled a portion of the claims by filing a terms of settlement in the earlier suit incorporating the agreements dated September 7, 2000 and June 12, 2002 which formed part of the Compromise Decree dated March 17, 2004. The said compromise decree was put into execution and a deed of conveyance was executed on July 8, 2010 and possession of the property was handed over to the appellant. However, the appellant discovered that the possession of the entire property conveyed to the appellant was not handed over and the appellant claims to be entitled to the value of the balance portion of the land and filed the instant suit.

5. No formal application for transfer of the instant suit to the Commercial Division was filed. However, on an oral prayer of the appellant, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred the instant appeal.

6. Mr. Gomes, the learned advocate for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to various clauses of the agreements dated September 7, 2000 and June 12, 2002 which formed part of the consent decree and strenuously contended that since possession of a smaller area was handed over than that conveyed by the deed of conveyance, the debt due and payable by the defendants to the appellant stood revived. He, thus, contended that since the said debt relate to agreements for sale of goods, the dispute involved in the instant suit is a 'commercial dispute' as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts act, 2015 (for short 'the 2015 act'). By referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India and others reported at (1988)2 SCC 299, Mr. Gomes submitted that the expression 'arising out of ' appearing in Clause (c) of Section 2(1) of the 2015 act shall be given as found in the standard dictionaries and the same has to be given a expanded meaning. By drawing inspiration from the said reported decision he referred to the meaning of the word 'arise' given in Concise Oxford Thesaurus and contended that the dispute involved in the instant suit originated and emanated from the agreement for sale of goods. He further, contended that such dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because of the fact that it involves realization of monies out of immovable property in view of Explanation (a) to Section 2(1)(c). In support of such submission he placed reliance upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge passed on March 1, 2021 in Ga no. 2 of 2021, CS 160 of 2020 (Swastik Project Private Limited vs. City Enclave Private Limited and ors). He further contended that after the co