The court clarified that distinct causes of action in two separate suits prevent dismissal under Order II Rule 2, and determined that the present dispute did not qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Appeal is at the behest of the plaintiff and directed against the judgement and decree dated November 29, 2023.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, learned Single Judge, allowed an application seeking dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant.

3. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, Learned Single Judge, dismissed the suit primarily on two grounds. One of the two grounds, was per Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the other was that, the dispute being a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the suit not being filed in the Commercial Division, subsequent to the cut off date being December 11, 2020, was barred under Section 12A of the Act of 2015.

4. Learned senior Advocate for the appellant submits that, the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as erroneously done by the learned Single Judge. He submits that, the appellant filed a suit being Title Suit No.162 of 2021 in the Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Serampore. He refers to the plaint of such suit (hereinafter for the sake of convenience referred to as the “first suit”). He submits that, there are two defendants in the first suit, namely, the respondent herein as the first defendant and the State of West Bengal as the second defendant. So far as the present suit is concerned, there are two defendants also. However, apart from the respondent no.1 herein being common in the two suits, the other defendant in the present suit is a Municipality.

5. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the causes of action in the two suits are different. He points out that, the appellant purchased immoveable properties from the respondent no.1 in the present appeal for valuable consideration. The appellant filed the first suit seeking relief with regard to the dues that the respondent no.1 owed to the State Government and which the appellant was forced to pay. He points out that, the second suit is essentially under Sections 69 and 70 of the Contract Act. Since, the respondent no.1 was not paying the Municipal rates and taxes for the separation, the appellant paid the same. The appellant as the plaintiff is seeking to recover the same from the respondent no.1. He points out that, the Municipality was made party defendant in the present suit since, the Municipality is a proper party. The Municipality was not permitting the appellant to continue to develop the immoveable properties since the respondent no.1 was not paying the municipality requisite separation fees.

6. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, essentially, the causes of action in the two suits are different. Parties in the two suits are different. In the first suit the second defendant is the State of West Bengal, while, in the present suit, the second defendant is a Municipality.

7. Relying upon (2022)16 SCC 1 (Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr.) and (2015) 11 SCC 12 (Inbasagaran & Anr. Vs. S. Natarajan (Dead) Through Legal Representatives), learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the present suit cannot be dismissed under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure since, the two suits are not based on the same cause of action.

8. Learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, all disputes of commercial nature cannot be brought under the purview o