VIPIN SANGHI, J.

I.A. No. 17975/2015

1. This application has been moved by the plaintiffs under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to seek amendment of the plaint.

2. The only amendment sought by the plaintiffs is to re-value the suit for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction. The relief (a), which is the relief of rendition of accounts, was originally valued for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction at Rs.25 Lakhs, on which the Court Fees of Rs.26,744/- was affixed. All the other reliefs were valued at Rs.200/- each for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction, and Court Fees of Rs.20/- was affixed on each of these reliefs.

3. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs wish to re-value the first relief of rendition of accounts at Rs.2 Crores for the purpose of Court Fees and jurisdiction and pay ad valorem Court Fees of Rs.1,97,650/- on the said relief. It is not in dispute that the dispute raised in the present suit falls within the definition of a “commercial dispute” as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Courts Act).

4. The suit is at the preliminary stage inasmuch, as, written statements have been filed by some of the defendants with applications seeking condonation of delay, while two defendants have filed applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to seek stay of the suit and reference of disputes to arbitration. The issues have not yet been framed in the suit. The application for amendment has been moved, obviously, on account of rise in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court from Rs.20 Lakhs to Rs.2 Crores by the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015. The amendment, if not made, would result in the suit being transferred to the concerned District Court having jurisdiction.

5. The defendants have raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the present application on merits, since, by virtue of the Commercial Courts Act, and the orders issued by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in pursuance of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, the suit already stands transferred to the Court of the District Judge, and this Court has, therefore, become functus officio to deal with the present application. The submission is that the application for amendment could be considered only by the concerned District Judge to whom the case is transferred and even if, eventually, it were to be allowed, the plaint would have to be returned for re-presentation before this Court. If that were to happen, the proceedings in the suit would have to proceed de novo once the plaint is re-presented before this Court, post grant of amendment.

6. The arguments of learned counsel have, therefore, centered on the issue whether this Court can deal with the present application for amendment, since the suit, according to the plaintiffs, stands transferred by the force of the aforesaid enactments.

7. I may, to begin with, take note of some of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act.

8. Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act deals with the aspect of constitution of Commercial Courts. Section 3(1) states that:

“3. (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:”

9. The proviso to the said section, however, states that “no Commercial Court shall be constituted for the territory over which the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction”. Since the Delhi High Court had ordinary original civil jurisdiction when the Commercial Courts Act was enacted, Section 3 (1) would not apply to Delhi High Court. Thus, in Delhi, there are no Commercial Courts at district level.

10. Section 4 of the Commercial Courts Act read