2026 Supreme(Cal) 139

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
M/s. Dev Sahitya Kutir Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Uttam Kumar Agarwal and others – Respondents
FMAT No. 27 of 2026, CAN 1 of 2026, CAN 2 of 2026 with FMAT No. 28 of 2026, CAN 3 of 2026
Decided On : 12-05-2026

A dispute over immovable property used for commercial purposes constitutes a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, requiring adherence to market-value-based jurisdiction. Additionally, courts are barred from granting injunctions for reliefs not expressly sought in the pleadings or injunction applications.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Sections 2(1)(c)(vii) and 12(c) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) - Commercial dispute - Valuation of suit involving immovable property - Determination of specified value based on market value - Ordinary civil jurisdiction versus commercial court jurisdiction. (Paras 34-41)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Condonation of delay - Misplacement of papers due to shifting of advocate’s chamber constitutes plausible explanation - Absence of mala fide or inordinate negligence - Discretion of Court to condone delay where legitimate basis is established. (Paras 15-18)

(C) Injunction - Scope of relief - Court cannot act beyond its jurisdiction by granting reliefs not sought in the plaint or temporary injunction application - Necessity to establish nexus between construction activities and interference with possession. (Paras 43-47)

Facts of the case:
The appellant preferred appeals challenging ad interim injunction orders passed by the trial court. The appellant sought substitution of a deceased respondent and requested condonation of delay, justifying it by the misplacement of documents due to the relocation of legal counsel's chambers. The respondent contested the appealability of ad interim orders and the merits of the injunctions, which restrained construction activities not expressly mentioned in the original injunction application. The trial court had exercised ordinary civil jurisdiction despite the commercial nature of the property and dispute.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the dispute concerning the property, used for commercial purposes, falls within the statutory definition of a “commercial dispute.” Under the law, the market value of the immovable property dictates the valuation for jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction as the suit was not framed according to the rigorous standards of the relevant commercial legislation. Furthermore, the trial court erred by granting relief that was never pleaded or sought by the plaintiff.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the suit qualifies as a commercial dispute, whether it was properly valued for jurisdiction, and whether the trial court acted without jurisdiction by granting relief not requested in the original prayer.

Ratio Decidendi: A dispute arising from an agreement relating to immovable property used for commercial activity is a commercial dispute governed by specific statutory valuation principles. Courts are prohibited from granting injunctions for reliefs that are not specifically sought in the plaint or the prayer of an injunction application. Ex parte ad interim orders or extensions thereof are appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Result: Appeals allowed.