ORDER :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

1. The present Civil Revision Petition (CRP) arises out of an order dated 12.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.266 of 2023 in C.O.S.No.15 of 2023 by the Commercial Court, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (‘Trial Court’). By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the petitioner’s application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the Suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

2. The petitioner is the defendant in a Suit (C.O.S.No.15 of 2023) filed by the respondent for recovery of a total amount of Rs.1,03,58,961/- consisting of the principal amount of Rs.44,53,396/- along with interest at 18% per annum, along with damages. The petitioner filed I.A.No.266 of 2023 in the said Suit for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Suit was barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC, more specifically under the provisions of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘the 2015 Act’)

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant argues that a Suit must satisfy the requirement of ‘Specified Value’ as defined under section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act for being classified as a Commercial Suit. According to counsel, the specified value falls below Rs.1 crore which would be evident from the prayers being divided into three separate segments consisting of the principal amount of Rs.44,53,396/-, interest amount of Rs.58,58,961/- and total amounting to Rs.1,03,58,961/-.

4. Counsel urges that this form of segregation is not permissible for computing the specified value of the Suit for the purpose of crossing the Rs.1 crore threshold. Counsel argues that the subsequent reduction of the ‘specified value’ by way of an Amendment to Rs.3 lakh may not be applicable to the State of Telangana in the absence of a State Notification.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff relies on the prayers in the Suit to argue that the cumulative amount of the reliefs would cross Rs.1 Crore within the requirement of section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act.

6. The issue which is first required to be clarified is the specified value for a Commercial dispute in order to qualify as a Commercial Suit under section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 of the 2015 Act.

7. Section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act defines ‘Specified Value’ as the value of the subject matter in respect of a Suit. The value of the subject matter is to be determined in accordance with section 12 of the 2015 Act. Section 2(1)(i) of the 2015 Act is set out below:

‘“Specified Value”, in relation to a 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 three lakh rupees] or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.’

8. Section 12(1) provides the pointers for determining the specified value of the subject matter of a commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application and includes recovery of money, movable and immovable property and any other intangible rights. Section 12 does not quantify any specified value in terms of a number in relation to the subject matter of a commercial dispute in a suit. Section 12 only aids the quantification of the Specified Value in different classes of suits involving a commercial dispute.

9. Section 2(1)(i) is the only provision which sets the lower limit of the specified value to the lowest denomination of 3 lakhs as would be evident from the words ‘which shall not be less than three lakh rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government’. The fixation of three lakhs was pursuant to the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018 (‘the Amendment Act, 2018’) wherein section 4(II) substituted the earlier

‘which shall not be less than one crore rupees’

With

‘which shall not be less than three lakh rupees’. (post amendment)

10. The substitution is reflected in the amended section