The court emphasized the importance of correctly applying the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, specifically Section 15(2), in transferring pending suits involving commercial disputes of specified value to the appropriate Commercial Court.

ORDER :

The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.33 of 2019 of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana. The suit was initially filed before the Munsiff's Court, Kattappana, seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants/respondents and was numbered as O.S.No.418 of 2014. Thereafter, the suit was amended and the additional relief of damages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, incorporated. The suit, as amended, being beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, the plaint was returned for presentation before the proper court. Accordingly, the plaint was represented before the Sub Court, Kattappana and was numbered OS No.33 of 2019. The defendants entered appearance and raised a preliminary objection, contending that the Sub Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to accept and entertain the amended plaint, since the transaction, which is the subject matter of the suit, is a commercial transaction. In response, the revision petitioner contended that the plaint having been returned from the Munsiffs Court under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit before the Sub Court is a continuation of the suit originally filed. The suit having been filed before introduction of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (“the Commercial Courts Amendment Act” for short), the Sub Court can proceed with the suit based on the represented plaint.

2. The court below, after detailed consideration, rejected the contention that the suit before the Sub Court is continuation of the suit instituted before the Munsiff’s Court, Kattappana and held that the re-presented plaint is nothing but a fresh plaint. It was further held that, as the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 had come into force on 23/10/2015 and the plaint was re-presented only on 08/07/2019, after the Commercial Courts Amendment Act had also come into effect, only Commercial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Relying on the decision in C.K.Surendran v. Kunhimoosa (MANU /KE/2143/2021), it was held that, since the suit was not transferred under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, it can only be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

3. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below went wrong in holding that the plaint could not have been presented before the Subordinate Judge's Court after the commencement of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Commercial Courts Amendment Act, 2018. It is contended that, since the Commercial Court for Idukki District was established on 05/03/2020, after the plaint was represented, the suit ought to have been transferred, following the mandate of Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act. Learned Counsel explained that, as per Section 15(2), all suits and applications relating to commercial disputes of specified value pending before the Civil Court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted is liable to be transferred to such Commercial Court. Therefore, the transfer under Section 15(2) is dependent on the constitution of the Commercial Court and not on the introduction of the Commercial Courts Act. It is hence contended that the impugned order ought to be set aside and the Sub Court directed to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court by exercising the power under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition. It is contended that appeal is provided against the order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 and in view of the appellate remedy under Order XLIII Rule 1(a), the bar under Section 115(1) of the Code will apply. It is submitted that the revision petitioner had neither sought transfer of the suit under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act nor to have approached the Commercial Appellate Division of the H