JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant (original defendant) calls in question the legality and validity of the order passed by the Commercial Court, Ahmedabad, dated 28th August 2018 below Exhibit: 16 in the Commercial Civil Suit No. 107 of 2017. The application Exhibit: 16 came to be filed by the applicant herein on the ground that the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the dispute between the parties is not commercial in nature as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act, 2015') and for return of the plaint to the plaintiff under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the C.P.C.') for being presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. In the plaint Exhibit: 16, the applicant raised an issue that the dispute between the parties is not one which could be termed as a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(c)(xviii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, 'the Act, 2015'). The application Exhibit: 16 came to be rejected by the Commercial Courts holding that the dispute could be said to be of a commercial nature, and therefore, there was no question of returning the plaint to be presented before any other appropriate Court. As the application Exhibit: 16 came to be rejected by the Commercial Court, the applicant is here before this Court with this application invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. For the sake of convenience, the applicant herein shall be referred to as the 'defendant' and the respondent herein shall be referred to as the 'plaintiff'.

4. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under.

4.1. The plaintiff instituted the Commercial Civil Suit No. 107 of 2017 for declaration and recovery of Rupees Seven Crore from the defendant. It appears that the defendant is a private limited company. The defendant waned to purchase few parcels of land. The plaintiff entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the defendant for the purpose of facilitating the defendant to purchase land. In other words, it appears from the agreement that the plaintiff would negotiate with the farmers for the purchase of the land, and later, the defendant would purchase such parcels of land at the rate of Rupees Thirty Two Lakh per Bigha from the respective farmers.

4.2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he negotiated with different farmers for purchasing 60 Bighas of land falling within the revenue limits of village: Lihoda and village: Pahadiya of Taluka: Dehgam, District: Gandhinagar.

4.3. According to the plaintiff, initially, the defendant purchased the land from the farmers in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding. But, later, the defendant started directly negotiating with the farmers and purchased the land at the rate less than what has been prescribed in the Memorandum of Understanding executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

4.4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the unilateral act on the part of the defendant was in breach of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding, and by such unilateral decision, the defendant has suffered loss of about Rupees Seven Crore.

4.5. In such circumstances referred to above, the Commercial Civil Suit No. 107 of 2017 came be instituted by the plaintiff in the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad.

4.6. On the suit being instituted in the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad, the defendant preferred an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the C.P.C. for return of the plaint, which came to be rejected. In the application Exhibit: 16, the stance of the defendant is that the dispute between the parties is not one within the meaning of the Act, 2015, and in such circumstances, the Commercial Court at Ahmedabad would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit under the provisions of the Act, 2015.

4.7. The a