Digitally signed VARSHA b V y IJ A V Y ARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU RAJGURU Date:

2025.10.10

78-IA-3142-3144-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY varsha ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3142 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 Rajesh Laxmichand Bheda …. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Ketan Vallabhji Veera and Ors … Plaintiffs vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Defendants and Ors WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3144 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL SUIT NO. 27 OF 2022 Entire Estates Pvt Ltd …. Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Ketan Vallabhji Veera and Ors … Plaintiffs vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai … Defendants and Ors Mr. Nigel Quraishy a/w. Mr.Dushyant Krishnan i/b. Garfield Mendonca for Plaintiffs.

Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay for Defendant Nos. 8 to 11 and 14.

Mr. Ashish Kamat, a/w. Mr. Maulik Vora, Ms. Akshata Pawar, i/b. Pramodkumar and Co. for Defendant Nos. 2 to 7.

Mr. Aadhil Parshurampurya a/w. Mr. Kartikey Aavasthi for defendant No.9.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER 2025 ORDER:

1. Interim Application No. 3142 of 2025 is filed by defendant no. 3 and Interim Application No. 3144 of 2025 is filed by defendant no. 9 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”) for a direction to return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court. Alternatively, the applicants have prayed that necessary directions be issued to renumber the plaint as a regular suit. It is contended by these defendants that the suit filed and instituted as a commercial suit would not fall under the definition of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act (‘said Act’).

Submissions On Behalf Of Defendant Nos. 3 and 9:

2. Learned counsels for these defendants relied upon various averments in the plaint to point out that the plaintiffs have identified themselves as co-owners of the subject property. Although they have prayed for relief of possession and declaration in respect of their undivided share in the suit property, the claim is based on a partnership firm that is admittedly dissolved. There is no dispute that the deed of dissolution was executed on 31^st December 1986, and thereafter, the deed of addendum to the dissolution deed was executed on 16^th June 1987. Even according to the plaintiff, there is no partnership firm in existence. The documents referred to and relied upon by the plaintiffs identify them as co- owners and not as partners. The suit filed, seeking a declaration of co-ownership, possession, and other incidental reliefs, does not pertain to the partnership agreement, as the partnership firm has been dissolved.

3. Learned counsels for these defendants submitted that the plaintiffs have not pleaded that any of the reliefs claimed in the suit would fall for consideration under the Commercial Division. The jurisdiction clause in paragraph no. 72 does not explain that the relief claimed in the suit would fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial division. The plain reading of the plaint reveals that the plaintiffs are claiming the reliefs as co-owners and not as partners. Once it is admitted that the partnership firm is dissolved, the claim in the suit would relate to the property dispute and thus would not fall under any of the clauses that define commercial disputes.

4. To support their submissions, learned counsels for these defendants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another¹. The relevant observations in paragraph no. 8 have been relied upon to support their submissions that the plaintiffs must plead that the court, which is a commercial court exclusively constituted to try the commercial dispute, has the jurisdiction to try the suit. It is thus contended that what is required to be seen is the averment in the plaint to indicate that the suit falls within the commercial dispute. On a similar proposition, they relied upon the decision of this court in the case