JUDGMENT :

M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J.

This appeal is filed challenging the endorsement dt.19.02.2020 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.S.R.No.55 of 2020 in OS.SR.No.363 of 2020.

2. The plaint in the said OS.SR was presented by appellant on 06.01.2020 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, and in the said plaint the appellant had sought a direction to respondent to pay damages amounting to Rs.5 crores. It is the allegation of appellant in the plaint that respondents had addressed an e-mail to IDEX and other e-mail groups on 10.11.2019 defaming and causing loss to appellant, and that such defamation of appellant on various online platforms is continuing, and that is the cause of action for filing this suit.

3. The Court below had initially raised an objection for numbering the suit that the dispute, as per averments in the plaint arose in the ordinary transaction of parties in the capacity of trader/merchants, and that the case would fall within the purview of Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. The petitioner re-submitted the case bundle contending that as per Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a commercial dispute arises when a dispute arises out of mercantile documents including enforcement and interpretation of such documents; and that in the instant suit, the dispute arose after a defamatory e-mail was sent by the defendants/respondents, and that the suit is filed for damages on that count.

5. Thereafter, the matter was heard on bench.

6. Vide the impugned endorsement dt.19.02.2020, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad again returned the plaint for presentation observing as under :

“A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and the 1st defendant is also a Private Limited Company. The plaint also discloses that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the share holders in the 1st defendant’s company and in view of the dispute that arose between them during the course of business transactions, there was exchange of e-mails, and further, the version of the plaintiff is that he sustained heavy loss in his business due to the acts of the defendants (at para no.29) and thus, he is entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- towards damages.

Section 2(1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act defines what a commercial dispute is and it clearly lays down that a dispute arises during ordinary transaction of merchants is also a commercial dispute. Further, the value of the subject matter is more than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Thus, undoubtedly, the suit has to be instituted before the Commercial Court, which is established specifically for the purpose of dealing with the disputes arising out of the commercial transactions, whose specified value exceeds Rs.1,00,00,000/-.

Thus, the plaint is returned for presentation before the proper Forum.”

7. The counsel for appellant contends that the interpretation placed by the Court below on Section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is erroneous, that the dispute raised in the suit did not arise out of the ordinary business transaction and arose from defamatory and damaging statements allegedly made by the respondents against the appellant; and since the defamatory e-mail was sent to a third-party with intention to malign the reputation of the appellant and was unrelated to the shareholding of the appellant in the 1st respondent-Company, the appellant was not obliged to approach the Commercial Court for filing the suit and is entitled to file it in the ordinary Civil Court in view of Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 which makes all suits entertainable by such a court unless expressly or impliedly admitted by law.

8. Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.253 of 2021 is filed to dispense with filing of certified copy of the endorsement dt.19.02.2020 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in C.S.R.No.55 of