Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & ASHUTOSH KUMAR, JJ.
HINDPAL SINGH JABBAL & OTHERS – Appellants
Versus
JASBIR SINGH & OTHERS – Respondents
F.A.O. (OS) No. 50 of 2016
Decided On : 22-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Singla, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri and Mr. Abhishek Khanna, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. P.S. Bindra, Advocate.
The judgment established the principle that for a suit to be considered a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, it must pertain to contracts/agreements of commercial transactions and not relate to any conveyance of immovable property.
Headnote:
Delhi High Court - Jurisdiction - The Delhi High Court Act, 1966, Section 5(2), The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, Sections 2 and 4
Fact of the Case:
The suit was directed to be transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi due to an amendment in Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, raising the pecuniary limit to rupees two crores.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the suit seeking cancellation of General Powers of Attorney, Sale Deeds, and possession did not fall within the ambit of commercial dispute as specified in the Commercial Courts Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the suit should be tried by the Commercial Division of the High Court or the jurisdictional subordinate courts due to the amendment in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit did not concern any agreement relating to immovable property and therefore did not fall within the ambit of commercial dispute as specified in the Commercial Courts Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court requested the concerned ADJ (West), Delhi to expedite the disposal of the case.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2015 passed by a learned single Judge of this court whereby the learned single Judge has directed that the suit be transferred to the jurisdiction of the District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on account of the fact that there has been an amendment in Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 brought out by Section 2 of the Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015 whereby this court would exercise jurisdiction in ordinary civil suits only if the value of such suits exceeded Rupees two crores.
2. Sections 2 and 4 of The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, being relevant to this case, are set out below:-
2. In sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, for the words rupees Twenty lakhs, the words rupees two crore shall be substituted.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi may transfer any suit or other proceedings which is or are pending in the High Court immediately before the commencement of this Act to such subordinate court in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as would have jurisdiction to entertain such suit or proceedings had such suit or proceedings been instituted or filed for the first time after such commencement.
3. Admittedly, the value of the suit in the present case is less than 2 crores.
4. The order dated 24.11.2015 (as amended on 24.07.2016) passed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in exercise of powers under section 4 of The Delhi High Court (Amendment) Act, 2015, inter-alia, stipulates as under:-
(i) All suits or other proceedings pending in the Delhi High Court on the Original Side below the value of rupees one crore, excepting those cases in which final judgments have been reserved, be transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate courts.
(ii) All suits or other proceedings the value of which is rupees one crore and above but does not exceed rupees two crores, other than those relating to commercial disputes the specified value of which is not less than rupees one crore (as defined in The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015), pending in the Delhi High Court on the Original Side, excepting those cases in which final judgments have been reserved, be transferred to the jurisdictional subordinate courts.
The Transfer of cases to the subordinate courts shall commence from today i.e., 24.11.2015.
5. This case has had a chequered history. Initially, the suit was filed being CS (OS) No. 927/2001 and was valued at approximately Rs.10.50 lacs. At that point of time, the lower limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court for ordinary civil suits was in excess Rs.5 lacs. That was subsequently amended on 22.08.2003 whereby the minimum pecuniary limit was raised to in excess of Rs. 20 lacs. As such on 10.11.2003 this Court transferred the said CS (OS) No. 927/2001 to the District Court.
6. While the matter was proceeding before the District Court, in the course of cross-examination of the plaintiff as PW-2 it was admitted that the value of the property in question was Rs. 1 crore. Having noticed this, the Additional District Judge by an order dated 13.04.2010 returned the plaint under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be filed before this court inasmuch as the value of the suit was clearly above Rs.20 lacs. Being aggrieved, the appellant/plaintiff filed an appeal being FAO (OS) No. 219/2010. That was disposed of by an order dated 05.05.2011 whereby a learned single Judge of this court held that Order 7 Rule 10(2) CPC ought not to have been taken recourse to, instead, the entire suit ought to have been transferred under Section 24(5) CPC to this court. It was ordered accordingly.
7. Thereafter the suit which had been numbered as suit No. 81/2003 before the District Court, having been transferred to this court, was renumbered as CS(OS) 1625/2011. The suit proceeded and evidence was partly record
