IMPORTANT POINT
A plaint must be read meaningfully to determine if it discloses a cause of action; issues of jurisdiction and limitation are to be resolved at trial.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.) :

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the learned Judge Commercial Court at Alipore in T.S. (Com) No. 48 of 2023. By the order impugned, the Learned Court rejected an application under Order 7, Rule 11, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was registered as I.A. No.05 of 2023. It was filed by the defendant Nos. 2 to 6/petitioners.

2. The petitioners herein prayed for rejection of the plaint. The learned Court was of the view that the questions of limitations, non-disclosure of cause of action etc., were mixed questions of law and fact and should be decided on evidence. Upon a meaningful reading of the plaint, the learned Court opined that the plaint disclosed a cause of action. Whether the plaintiff would ultimately succeed or not, would be a matter of trial and not the subject matter of an enquiry under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking rejection of the plaint.

4. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has assailed the order on various grounds. First of such grounds being, absence of cause of action. It has been specifically urged that the suit, as it had been framed, did not disclose whether the same was filed for eviction of a tenant or a trespasser or a licensee.

5. Order 7 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was relied upon to urge that the plaint ought to have clearly stated the grounds on which the plaintiff proceeded against the petitioners and what were the reliefs claimed. It was next submitted that the suit was not maintainable before the Commercial Division as the dispute disclosed in the plaint was not a commercial one. The Commercial Court at Rajarhat did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit.

6. Mr. Chatterjee urged this Court to consider the specific objections taken in the application seeking rejection of the plaint. Learned Advocate stated that the suit for recovery of possession was filed under the Transfer of Property Act and did not come within the definition of a Commercial Dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii). The dispute did not arise out of any agreement in respect of immovable property, used exclusively for trade or commerce. The lease agreement which expired in 1993 could not be the basis for filing of the suit in the Commercial Division. Admittedly, there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the immovable property which had given rise to the present dispute. The schedule of the plaint would indicate that the property was a dwelling house. The plaint did not disclose that the petitioners were using the property for commercial activity. The petitioners had been in occupation of the premises even after the expiry of lease. They were exercising their right of possession over the premises, without any interference or interruption. Thus, the suit was also barred by limitation as the same was filed beyond twelve years from expiry of the lease.

7. The petitioners also raised a question with regard to the maintainability of the suit in the Commercial Court, on account of noncompliance of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It was submitted that mediation had not initiated by the plaintiff/opposite party.

8. Mr. Chatterjee relied on the following decisions:-

a) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and anr. reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585;

b) Deepak Polymers Private Limited vs. Anchor Investments Private Limited decided in CO No.759 of 2021; and

c) Biswanath Agarwalla vs. Sabitri Bera and ors. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 693.

9. Mr. S.N. Mookherjee, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the opposite party, submitted that the grounds on which a plaint could be rejected, were not available to the petitioners. The plaint disclosed a cause of action. The suit property was lea