The jurisdiction of civil courts must be determined preliminarily when an arbitration clause exists in the dispute.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No.1.

2. By way of this civil revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief:-

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant revision and the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Principal District Judge Rajnandgaon, passed in Civil Suit No. 30A/2024, in the matter of "Deepak Daga v. Salasar Balaji & One another" so far as it relates to rejection of the application preferred by the defendant No.1 under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, may kindly be set aside and the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure may kindly be allowed and plant may kindly be rejected or the parties may kindly be relegated to the arbitrator.”

3. Brief facts of the case, are that the present civil revision has been filed by the defendant No.1 (Company through its Managing Director) assailing the legality and propriety of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Rajnandgaon, whereby the trial Court decided two applications— (i) an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (‘CPC’) preferred by the plaintiff, and (ii) an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the present revisionist (defendant No.1) seeking rejection of the plaint. While the plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction was allowed in part, the defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was rejected. The non-applicant No.1/plaintiff filed a civil suit seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. The relief sought included a declaration that the sale deed dated 22.10.2024 executed in favour of the defendant No.1 with respect to certain lands bearing Khasra Nos. 192/1, 196/9, 192/3, 192/4, measuring a total area of 2.627 hectares situated at village Sivnikhurd, Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, is null and void. A consequential relief of injunction was also sought restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and from executing any further sale deed concerning the said property.

4. According to the plaintiff, he and his two brothers are Directors of Vishnu Power and Energy Pvt. Ltd. and Giriraj Solvent Extraction Pvt. Ltd., and due to financial distress and outstanding liabilities with the State Bank of India, a decision was taken to sell the properties of the company. The plaintiff claims that he entered into a transaction with the defendant No.1 for sale of the properties, and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed with the Bank, wherein the defendant No.1 agreed to pay the outstanding dues in installments. It is alleged that although most installments were paid, the last installment was obtained by coercion and fraud. The plaintiff further alleges that the documents were signed without reading under pressure, and the original title documents were taken away by the defendant No.1, who later executed registered sale deeds fraudulently, without paying the actual consideration. In response, the defendant No.1 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on 17.12.2024 seeking rejection of the plaint on two primary grounds: (i) the transaction in question is of a commercial nature, involving a commercial dispute between the parties, and therefore, in view of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015, the civil suit was not maintainable before the regular civil Court; and (ii) the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause (par