A dispute arising from an agreement to sell immovable property used for trade is a commercial dispute, mandating resolution in a Commercial Court, as clarified by statutory definitions.

ORDER :

SANJEET PUROHIT, J.

1. The present Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC, challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by Learned Additional District Judge No.7, Bikaner (“Learned Trial Court”) in Civil Original Suit No. 66/2024, whereby, while dealing with an application filed on behalf of respondents-defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, Learned Trial Court has held that the dispute involved in the suit is a “commercial dispute” covered within meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Act of 2015”) and, in exercise of its powers under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, returned the plaint to be filed before Commercial Court of competent jurisdiction.

2. The subject-matter of the dispute is an agreement to sell dated 22.02.2024 entered into by the parties for sale of two shops (“suit premises”) situated at Khasra No. 831, Bikaner Housing Co- operative Society Limited, Mukta Prasad Nagar Road, in front of Saint N.N. School, Bikaner.

2.1 It is admitted in the plaint that appellants-plaintiffs have been carrying on their business from the suit premises and occupying the same in the capacity of tenants for over 10 years. Respondents-defendants approached appellants for selling the suit premises and the parties entered into the said agreement to sell for total consideration of Rs. 33 Lakhs, out of which, Rs. 3 Lakhs were paid in advance on the date of execution of the agreement and the rest was to be paid on the execution and registration of sale deed by respondents.

2.2 It is stated that, as per the terms of the said agreement to sell, respondents were under obligation to execute a sale deed within six months from the date of execution of agreement to sell, however, the same has not been done. It is submitted that appellants served a legal notice upon the respondents on 23.09.2024, calling upon them to comply with the agreement, in reply to which respondents have refused to perform their obligations.

2.3 Based on the said pleadings, appellants filed the suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell, as well as prayed for mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the respondents.

2.4 After service of notice, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was filed on behalf of the respondents, questioning the maintainability of suit on the ground of suit valuation, so also the ground that suit is barred by law. It is stated in the said application that the suit valuation mentioned in the plaint as well as the court fees paid are not in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1961, thus, the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(b).

The objection under Order 7 Rule 11(d) was also raised.

2.5 The application was contested on behalf of appellants, stating therein that the details in respect of suit valuation as mentioned in para 15 of the plaint are wholly justified. It was further stated that even otherwise, the said issue can only be decided after evidence is led by both parties, therefore, the present application is not maintainable. It is also stated in the said reply that although objection regarding suit being barred by law has been taken, however, it has not been specified in the application as to how the present suit is barred by any law.

2.6 During the course of arguments, it was contended on behalf of respondents that the subject matter of suit is an agreement relating to the sale of suit premises which admittedly have been used by appellants for the purpose of their trade and busi