JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vadakara, in E.P. No.37/2021 in O.S. No.20/2019, the judgment debtor has filed the original petition. The respondent is the decree-holder.

2. The facts, in a nutshell, leading to Ext.P1 order are: the respondent had filed O.S. No.20/2019 against the petitioner for a decree for recovery of money. The petitioner had entered into Ext.P2 agreement with the respondent to borrow an amount of Rs.20/-lakh. The petitioner had agreed to repay the amount within two years. The petitioner issued a cheque in discharge of his liability, which got dishonoured. Consequently, the respondent filed the suit. The court below decreed the suit on 27.02.2021 by Ext.P3 decree and Ext.P4 judgment. The respondent laid the decree to execution. The petitioner raised a preliminary objection that the decree was not executable because the court below lacked inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, which was commercial in nature, falling within the ken of clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (in short, ‘Act’). Therefore, the decree is a nullity. By the impugned Ext.P1 order, the court below rejected the petitioner’s objection. Ext.P1 order is ex-facie illegal and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.B.Krishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.

4. Sri. B. Krishnan drew the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and argued that in view of the notification bearing No.51/2020/Home dated 24.02.2020, promulgated by the Government of Kerala, establishing Commercial Courts in the State, the court of the Subordinate Judge was bound to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court as per mandate under Section 15 of the Act. From 24.02.2020, only the Commercial Courts have jurisdiction to deal with a commercial dispute. Ext. 3 decree is coram non-judice and is therefore not executable. He placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad and others[ 2007 (2) SCC 355] to bolster his submission. He urged that Ext.P1 order may be set aside.

5. The question is whether there is any illegality in Ext.P1 order.

6. O.S. No.20/2019 was instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for a decree for recovery of money.

7. By Ext.P3 decree, the respondent was permitted to realise from the petitioner an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-with future interest.

8. By notification dated 24.02.2020, fourteen Commercial Courts were established in the State of Kerala by designating one Subordinate Court in each District as a Commercial Court.

9. Subsequently, by notification dated 18.03.2022, all the Subordinate Courts in the State were designated as Commercial Courts.

10. Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act reads as follows:

15. Transfer of pending cases.—(1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.

(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court:

Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under subsection (1) or sub-section (2).

(3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial