JUDGMENT :

Harsha Devani, J.

1. By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.1.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Commercial Review Application No.1 of 2018 whereby the review application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The facts stated briefly are that, in connection with certain disputes between the petitioner (original plaintiff) and the respondent, the petitioner instituted a suit being Commercial Civil Suit No.154 of 2017 in the Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Commercial Court”) established under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the Commercial Courts Act”). It is the case of the petitioner that it had purchased a chiller plant by placing a purchase order with TRANE India Private Limited. The chiller plant RTWA-215 so installed, had defects in its origin and even the installation thereof was not duly and properly done by the engineers of TRANE. It appears that there were several difficulties in the functioning of the plant on account of improper installation resulting in periodical abrupt shut downs of the plant. Soon after the installation of the chiller plant, the company viz. TRANE India Private Limited merged with Service First Aircon Private Limited which took over all the responsibilities and liabilities of TRANE and subsequently, the name Service First Aircon Private Limited was changed to Ingersoll Rand Climate Solutions Private Limited. According to the petitioner, there were frequent breakdowns and the efficiency of the plant was deteriorating even after incurring huge expenses as advised by the respondent. Moreover, irrespective of charging huge amount for a number of years, when the petitioner asked for detailed explanation about the circumstances, basic reasons for such problems as well as the periodical steps taken to cure the problems that had taken place as well as preventive measures taken by the respondent, for the first time in the year 2007- 2008, the respondent came out with an offer of a Comprehensive Annual Maintenance Contract (CAMC), which would include charges for regular periodical services as well as costs of repairing and spares. It is the case of the petitioner that since it had spent a huge amount and as the respondent had once again assured to put the plant in fully and long lasting working condition with complete efficiency, the petitioner accepted the offer of CAMC. On account of various disputes arising, as according to the petitioner, the respondent failed to perform its obligation of maintaining, repairing the plant and discharging the obligation to the satisfaction of the petitioner even under the CAMC, the petitioner ultimately filed the suit which was registered as Commercial Civil Suit No.154 of 2017 in the Commercial Court, City Civil Court at Ahmedabad praying for a declaration, direction and damages against the respondent. The Commercial Court, however, was of the view that the transaction in question would not fall within the scope and ambit of section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act and, accordingly, called upon the petitioner to justify as to whether the transaction in question would fall within the ambit of a “commercial dispute” as contemplated under section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act.

3. After affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, by an order dated 24.8.2017 passed below Exhibit-1, the Commercial Court held that the dispute involved in the present case is not a commercial dispute as contemplated in section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act and ordered that the plaint along with the court fee stamp used thereon be returned to the petitioner for presentation before the court having competent jurisdiction to try and entertain the same.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal from order before this court being Appeal from Order No.283 of 2017 wh