Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Achal Kumar Paliwal, J.
Bhopal Fracture Hospital (M/s.) & Others v. Savitri Devi Vijaywargiya
Civil Revision No. 24 of 2024 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 15.4.2024
(1) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O.7 R.11 -- only plaint averments and documents filed along with plaint are required to be seen and examined while deciding application -- not written statement/documents filed by defendants. (2020) 15 SCC 585 followed. [Para 11]
(2) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -- S. 2(1)(c) -- commercial dispute -- propositions for interpreting whether dispute is “commercial dispute” or not -- (i) term “commercial dispute” is to be strictly interpreted -- (ii) wide interpretation would defeat purpose/object of Act -- (iii) words used exclusively in trade or commerce are to be used/interpreted purposefully -- (iv) Act has been enacted for early disposal of high value commercial disputes -- (v) dispute has to be a genuine “commercial dispute” -- (vi) purpose of enactment would also provide basis for determining whether dispute is a “commercial dispute” or not. (2020) 15 SCC 585 followed. [Para 19]
(3) Civil P. C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11 -- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 -- Ss. 2(1)(c), 6 and 12(1)(c) -- M. P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 -- Ss. 12(1)(e), 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(f) -- "commercial dispute" -- suit property leased out/rented to respondent for running hospital -- suit filed under Accommodation Control Act for vacant possession and recovery of arrears of rent on ground of bona fide requirement for residence and non-payment of rent -- application for rejection of plaint on ground that it is a commercial dispute therefore trial Court lacks jurisdiction -- held -- such dispute is not commercial dispute as defined u/s. 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act -- ordinarily, landlord-tenant cases do not come within purview of commercial dispute -- “commercial dispute” indicates something more than a simple landlord-tenant dispute -- held further -- plaintiff has valued suit on basis of annual rent, not on market value thus, it does not come within purview of S. 2(1)(c)(i) of Commercial Courts Act -- held further -- suit has also been filed for bona fide requirement of residence therefore, arbitration clause of lease would not be applicable -- trial Court has not committed any illegality/perversity in dismissing application under O. 7 R. 11 of CPC. (2020) 15 SCC 585 followed. (2023) SCC Online Cal. 165, (2022) 10 SCC 1, (2005) 7 SCC 791 and 2017 SCC Online Del. 10706 distinguished. [Paras 20, 23 to 25 & 28]
(4) Arbitration -- suit filed for bona fide requirement of residence -- arbitration clause of lease would not be applicable. [Para 25]
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11 & vkosnu dk fofu'p;u djrs le; dsoy okni= ds çdFkuksa vkSj okni= ds lkFk çLrqr fd, x, nLrkostksa dk voyksdu vkSj ijh{k.k fd;k tkuk visf{kr & çfroknh }kjk çLrqr fyf[kr dFku@nLrkostksa dk ughaA ¼2020½ 15 ,llhlh 585 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 11½
¼2½ okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 2015 & /kkjk 2¼1½¼x½ & okf.kfT;d fookn & fookn ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** gS ;k ugha] ;g fuoZpu djus ds fy, çfriknuk,¡ & ¼1½ in ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** dk vfrfu;efu"B fuoZpu djuk gksrk gS & ¼2½ foLrh.kZ fuoZpu ls vf/kfu;e dk ç;kstu@mn~ns'; foQy gks tk,xk & ¼3½ vuU; :i ls O;kikj ;k okf.kT; esa ç;qä 'kCnksa dk ç;ksx@fuoZpu ç;kstuiwoZd fd;k tkuk gksrk gS & ¼4½ vf/kfu;e mPp ewY; ds okf.kfT;d fooknksa ds Rofjr fuiVkjs ds fy, vf/kfu;fer fd;k x;k gS & ¼5½ fookn okLrfod ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** gh gksuk pkfg, ¼6½ vf/kfu;fefr dk ç;kstu Hkh ;g vo/kkfjr djus dk vk/kkj gks ldrk gS fd fookn ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** gS ;k ughaA ¼2020½ 15 ,llhlh 585 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 19½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk- 7 fu- 11 & okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 2015 -- /kkjk 2¼1½¼x½] 6 rFkk 12¼1½¼x½ & e-ç- LFkku fu;a=.k vfèkfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 12¼1½¼³½] 12¼1½¼d½ rFkk 12¼1½¼p½ & ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** & okn laifÙk fpfdRlky; pykus ds fy, çR;FkhZ dks iês@HkkM+s ij nh xbZ & fuokl ds fy, okLrfod vko';drk vkSj HkkM+s ds vlank; ds vk/kkj ij fjä dCts vkSj HkkM+s ds cdk;k dh olwyh ds fy, LFkku fu;a=.k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu okn çLrqr & bl vk/kkj ij okni= dh ukeatwjh ds fy, vkosnu fd ;g okf.kfT;d fookn gS blfy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks vf/kdkfjrk dk vHkko gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ,slk fookn okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼1½¼x½¼7½ ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr okf.kfT;d fookn ugha & lkekU;r% Hkw&Lokeh&vfHk/kkjh ds çdj.k okf.kfT;d fookn dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrs & ^^okf.kfT;d fookn** ls lknk Hkw&Lokeh&vfHk/kkjh fookn ls dqN vf/kd vfHkçsr gS & vkxs vfHkfu/kkZfjr & oknh us okn dk ewY;kadu okf"kZd HkkM+s ds vk/kkj ij fd;k gS] cktkj ewY; ij ugha blfy, ;g okf.kfT;d U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2¼1½¼x½¼7½ dh ifjf/k esa ugha vkrk & vkxs vfHkfuèkkZfjr & okn fuokl dh okLrfod vko';drk ds fy, Hkh çLrqr fd;k x;k gS blfy, iV~Vs dk ek/;LFke~ [kaM ykxw ugha gksxk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vk- 7 fu- 11 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt dj dksbZ voSèkrk@foi;ZLrrk ugha dhA ¼2020½ 15 ,llhlh 585 vuqlfjrA ¼2023½ ,llhlh v‚uykbu dy- 165] ¼2022½ 10 ,llhlh 1] ¼2005½ 7 ,llhlh 791 rFkk 2017 ,llhlh v‚uykbu fnYyh 10706 çHksfnrA ¼iSjk 20] 23 ls 25 ,oa 28½
¼4½ ek/;LFke~ & okn fuokl dh okLrfod vko';drk ds fy, çLrqr & iV~Vs dk ek/;LFke~ [kaM ykxw ugha gksxkA ¼iSjk 25½
ORDER
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.
2. The present civil revision has been filed under section 115 of CPC against order dated 3.10.2023 passed in RCS No.286-A of 2022, by 7th Civil Judge, Senior Division. Bhopal whereby, petitioners application under section 7 rule 11 CPC has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the dispute between the parties is prima-facie a commercial dispute as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Commercial dispute is defined under section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act. (hereinafter referred as “Act”). From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that all the disputes arising out of an agreement for an immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce is a commercial dispute. It is clear from section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that as per lease dated 1.2.2013, respondent had given suit property on lease to the petitioners for running hospital and allied services. Respondent has valued the suit as Rs.23,25,780/-. and thus, subject matter of the dispute between the parties is also more than Rs.3,00,000/-as per section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 of the “Act”. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to section 12(1)(a) of the “Act”.
4. As per section 6 of the Act, the Commercial Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the commercial dispute arising in their territory. From bare reading of section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, it is clear that XVIII Civil Judge Senior Division, the designated Commercial Court at Bhopal, will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In view of above, learned trial Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in holding that. from bare perusal of first lease agreement dated 26.4.1999, it cannot be concluded that at the time of execution of the said lease deed, the property was used exclusively for trade and commerce. As from bare reading of para-2 and 3 of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that petitioners have always intended to use the leased property for running hospital and same was always impliedly consented by the respondent and thus the parties had absolute meeting of mind as to the use of the suit property for commercial purpose at the time of execution of the lease deed dated 26.4.1999.
5. For the purpose of Commercial Courts Act, it is not only the averments made in the plaint which can be looked into but the entire documents and pleadings of defendant can also be looked into to ascertain the exact nature of the transaction entered into between the parties.
6. Hence, in this case, though there is a clear pleading in the plaint that the suit property was leased out to the petitioners for running hospital (commercial activities) but from the lease deed filed on record and the application filed by the petitioners, it was also apparent that dispute was admittedly a Commercial dispute falling within definition of section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act. Scope of Commercial Court Act and section 6 of the same is much wider than the scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.
7. Learned counsel for petitioners, after referring to Clause-14 of lease agreement, submits that as per above clause, all disputes and differences between the parties arising out of this agreement were required to be referred to arbitration. Before filing present suit, plaintiff has not referred the matter to arbitration.
8. With respect to above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Subrata Kumar Ghose v. Ries Limited and Another (2023) SCC Online 165, Jagmohan Behl v. State Bank of Indore 2017 SCC Online Del 10706, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. And another (2005) 7 SCC 791, Patil Automation Private Lim
An eviction suit under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act does not constitute a commercial dispute and is maintainable in Civil Court, not Commercial Court.
A dispute regarding a lease for commercial purposes qualifies as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict construction of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the requirement to consider the nature of the proposed amendment before ....
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
