JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The instant application is at the instance of the defendant no. 2 and is directed against an order being no. 10 dated July 30, 2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Second Court, Hooghly (Sadar) in Title Suit No. 283 of 2021.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein was rejected.

3. The case made out by the opposite party no. 1 herein in the plaint of the instant suit is summarised hereunder as follows:

The plaintiff approached the defendant no. 1 with a proposal for granting license in respect of an area of 20,000 square feet for the purpose of using as open yard. The defendant no. 1 granted license for an area of 20,000 square feet which is described in B schedule to the plaint as per the terms stipulated in the license agreement dated November 15, 2020. The license agreement was for a period of 24 months with effect from 15.11.2020 to 14.11.2022. The defendants are trying to interfere and create disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the B scheduled property and were trying to evict the plaintiff before the expiry of the agreed period. Thus, the opposite party no. 1 filed the instant suit praying for a declaration that plaintiff is a permissive possessor under the defendant no. 1 in terms of the leave and license agreement dated November 15, 2020 and that the possession of the plaintiff cannot be disturbed without taking any due process of law. A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any disturbance towards the peaceful possession and/or using the open yard on the B scheduled property was also prayed for.

4. The defendant no. 2/petitioner herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging that the suit relates to a commercial dispute as per the pleadings of the plaint and the plaintiff has deliberately undervalued the suit and has also not determined the specified value of the subject matter of the commercial dispute with the sole motive to avoid payment of requisite ad valorem court fees. On such allegation the petitioner prayed for an order directing return of the plaint in Title Suit no. 283 of 2021 to be presented to the Court to which such suit should have been instituted.

5. The plaintiff/opposite party no. 1 herein contested the application under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code by filing a written objection denying the material allegations contained therein.

6. The learned Trial Judge, by the order impugned, rejected the said petition under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code. Being aggrieved against the said order, the defendant no. 2 has preferred the instant Civil Order.

7. Mr. Ghosh, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the plaintiff took possession of the immovable property in terms of an agreement for the purpose of using such immovable property exclusively in trade or commerce. He submitted that since the plaintiff raised a dispute arising out of such agreement the said dispute falls within the expression “commercial dispute” defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “the 2015 Act”). He further, contended that since the relief sought for in the suit relates to a right in respect of such immovable property the market value of the immovable property as on the date of filing of the suit should be taken into account for determining the specified value of the subject matter of the commercial dispute in view of the provisions laid down under Section 12(1)(c) of the 2015 Act. By drawing the attention of the Court to an e-assessment slip issued by the Directorate of Registration and Stamp Revenue, Mr. Ghosh contended that the market value of the suit property is about Rs. 92,47,544 which shall be taken to be the commercial dispute in the instant case. He, thus, submitted that since the specified value of the subject matter of the commer