ORDER

1. This civil revision has been filed against the order dated 21.2.2024 passed by Second Civil Judge, Junior Division, Shivpuri in RCSA No.120/2022, by which application filed by petitioner under Order 7 rule 11, CPC for rejection of plaint has been dismissed.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of present revision, in short, are that respondent filed a suit for eviction from the suit shop. The petitioner filed an application under Order 7 rule 11, CPC on the ground that since trade and business is being carried out by petitioner from the suit premises, therefore in view of section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”), jurisdiction of civil Court is barred and thus the civil Court should have rejected the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. To buttress his contention, counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment passed by Calcutta High Court in the case of Maharshi Commerce Limited v. Rajiv R. Balani & Ors. decided on 10.11.2022 in CS/3/2019 (IA No. GA/6/2022).

3. Per contra, revision is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that merely because the suit for eviction from the suit shop has been instituted on various grounds as mentioned in section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, the dispute would not become a commercial dispute. To buttress his contention, counsel for respondent has relied upon judgment passed by Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ujwala Raje Gaekwar v. Hemaben Achyut Shah and Ors. reported in 2016 0 Supreme (Guj) 1202 and order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bhopal Fracture Hospital and others v. Savitri Devi Vijjaywargiya decided on 15.4.2024 in CR No. 24/2024 (Principal Seat).

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. So far as the judgment relied upon by the counsel for petitioner in the case of Maharshi Commerce Limited (supra), is concerned, it is fairly conceded by counsel for petitioner that the said judgment is subject matter of SLP which is pending before the Supreme Court and there is an interim order. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that once there is an interim order in SLP arising out of Maharshi Commerce Limited (supra), then it would not be appropriate for this Court to rely upon the reasoning assigned in the said order.

6. “Commercial dispute” has been defined under section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act provides for “agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. In the present case, petitioner, who is tenant in the suit shop, is carrying out business from the tenanted premises.

7. "Specified value" has been defined under section 2(1)(i) of the Act, which provides that “specified value in relation to commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12, which shall not be less than 3 lakh rupees, or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.”

8. Section 12 of the Act reads as under :--

12. Determination of Specified Value -- (1)The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be determined in the following manner :––

(a) where the relief sought in a suit or application is for recovery of money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit or application inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the date of filing of the suit or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;

(b)where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to movable property or to a right therein, the market value of the movable property as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;

(c)where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to immovable