Disputes regarding construction agreements are classified as commercial under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, provided the specified value exceeds Rs. 1 crore.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Order dated 17.08.2022 in I.A. No. 681 of 2022 in O.S.No.140 of 2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Medchal, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, as being illegal and contrary to settled principles of law.

2. Heard Mr. G.T. Shekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

3. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 in the suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 as plaintiffs. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed the suit being O.S. No. 140 of 2021 seeking mandatory and perpetual injunction and for declaration of sale deeds executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondents Nos.6 to 10 as and void.

4. The brief facts as enumerated in the plaint are that, the petitioner herein who is arrayed as a defendant is a builder; that the respondent No.1 to 5 has entered into a Development - cum - General Power of Attorney (for short DGPA) vide Doc. No. 9703/2018 dated 18.01.2018 with the petitioner for construction of residential apartments over the suit scheduled property owned by them; that as per the DGPA 20% built - up area would fall to the share of the respondents Nos.1 to 5 / plaintiff and the 80% built - up area to the share of the petitioner / defendant; that subsequently, the parties had entered into a supplementary agreement dt. 14.06.2018 whereunder the sharing ratio of the builtup area has been altered to 49% to the share of respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein and 51% to the share of the petitioners; and that under the said agreement the respective flats falling to the share of respondent / plaintiffs and petitioner / defendant have been identified clearly and earmarked.

5. The respondent / plaintiffs also contend that as the petitioner / defendant had sold some of the flats falling to the share of respondent No.1 to 5 in breach of the supplementary agreement dated. 14.06.2018, disputes arose between the parties, and thus, the respondents Nos.1 to 5 had instituted the suit.

6. In the said suit filed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 against the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein had filed an Interlocutory application under Order VII, R.11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC) R/w S.8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act,1996), seeking rejection of the plaint. The interlocutory application was filed mainly on two grounds, namely the nature of disputes being commercial in nature, the suit was barred under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short CCA , 2015) and secondly, as the DGPA had an arbitration clause, the disputes ought to have been referred to arbitration. However, the petitioner herein did not press the ground relating to reference to arbitration before the court below at the time of hearing of the Interlocutory application and confined its challenge only in respect of the dispute being a commercial dispute, the present suit as filed is barred under Order VII, R.11(d) of the Code.

7. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed their counter opposing the application.

8. The Court below on hearing both parties had held that as per S.2(1)(c)(vii) of CCA , 2015 only agreements relating to immovable property which are exclusively used in trade or commerce would constitute a commercial dispute. The court below had concluded that since, the DGPA of the suit scheduled property is for construction of residential apartments, the dispute cannot be called as arising out of immovable property used exclusively for trad