JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. By way of this revision petition, petitioners have challenged the order of Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II dated 08.01.2021 in which learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 1(d) read with Sections 6, 10 and 11 of Commercial Court Act, 2015.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent had filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur which was transferred for adjudication to the court of learned Additional District Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Sections 6, 10 and 11 of Commercial Court Act, 2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that learned trial court has committed serious error in rejecting the application and not considering the specific pleading made by the respondent in the application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare perusal of the application shows that the said application is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits the application filed by the respondent clearly shows that he has spent crores of rupees in installation, operation of water dispenser units. So, the matter pertains to commercial transaction so civil court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the present matter comes under the ambit of commercial dispute so only commercial court has jurisdiction for adjudication.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the trial court has erred in not considering the letter/notice dated 01.01.2021 sent by respondent for appointment of arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the said letter clearly mentioned an amount of Rs. 27,32,00,000/- is in dispute. So, it clearly shows that the matter is purely commercial nature and it has to be adjudicated by commercial court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that trial court wrongly held that neither any dispute between the parties regarding the agreement nor any dispute regarding any transaction.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that trial court has erred in holding that as per the clause-5 of the agreement, dispute has to be resolved through arbitrator and not by the commercial court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in LDVC-CW-88-2020 (Gaurang Manguesh Suctancar vs. Sonia Gaurang Suctancar) decided on 20.07.2020.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3119/2018 (M/s. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on 05.04.2018.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has agreed to install water dispenser units on charity-basis. There is no monetary dispute between the petitioners and respondent. So, commercial court has no jurisdiction for adjudication of matter. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that trial court in its order clearly stated that the dispute between the parties are for installation of advertisement on water dispenser units. There is no dispute regarding agreement and transaction, so trial court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7843/2019 (arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 9391/2019), (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Anr.) decided on 04.10.2019.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon