A dispute must involve a commercial nature or commercial transactions between the parties to be considered a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

CM APPL. 28584/2023 (for early hearing)

1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the present petition.

2. For the reasons stated therein, the application seeking early hearing is allowed. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for consideration.

3. The application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 133/2023

4. Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed in Civ. DJ No. 897/2019 titled as "Vakil Chand vs. Saraswati Sahitya Mandir And Others" whereby an application under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been rejected.

5. Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the outset invites attention of this Court to the definition of "commercial disputes" under Section 2 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to submit that, if one were to go by the explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, the words employed in Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) to Section 2 of the Act which states "any other relief pertaining to the immovable property" would cover the case of the petitioner.

6. According to Mr. Suri, though there is no contract between the parties to the dispute, which could be called in the nature of a commercial agreement, however, the fact that the petitioner has been using the subject suit property, uninterruptedly for the past many decades for commercial trade, would itself fall within Clause (a) to sub- Section (1) to Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act and, therefore, the transfer of the suit from the ordinary Civil Court to the designated Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act ought to have been allowed by the learned Trial Court.

7. Mr. Suri, learned counsel also submits that in the present case, the petitioner has asserted itself to be an owner by way of adverse possession and has been carrying out commercial trade for the last many decades from the suit premises. That itself, per se, even without referring to the explanation under the Commercial Courts Act would, keeping in view the fact that the property itself is being used for a commercial purpose, bring the suit within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act.

8. Learned counsel submits that in that view of the matter, the learned Trial Court committed a grave illegality and a procedural irregularity by overlooking the express provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

9. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment of the Single Bench in T.V. Today Network Limited vs. News Laundry Media Private Limited And Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2233 of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as also the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal And Others vs. Manjit Kaur And Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court has recognized the right of the person asserting right over the subject suit property by way of adverse possession as an independent right to establish the same and claim the ownership rights over the subject suit property.

10. So far as the judgment of the Single Bench is concerned, learned counsel submits that the issue involved therein was defamation in respect of a programme being carried out by the defendants, which as per the Co-ordinate Bench was infringment of the rights of the said plaintiff therein.

Learned counsel, on that basis, submits that the suit also entails the protection of intellectual property rights of the petitioner/plaintiff, which necessarily makes the suit to be of a "commercial nature", as provided by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned counsel submits, in furtherance of his submission, that since the suits concerning the disputes pertaining to intellectual property rights fall within Commercial Courts Act, the learned Trial Court ought to transfer his suit to concerned commercial court.

11. On the basis of the