13th June, 2025 (AK)

01 C.O 3562 of 2024 Sri Laddu Gopal Bajoria Vs.

M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Mr. Arindam Banerjee Ms. Sulagna Mukherjee Mr. Ashis Kr. Mukherjee ...for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjib Kr. Mal Mr. Bimalendu Das Ms. Shomrita Das ...for the opposite party.

1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the learned executing court acted without jurisdiction in granting stay of an execution case pertaining to a decree of mesne profits granted in favour of the decree-holder/petitioner.

2. It is argued that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before this court against the non-grant of interest pendente lite and future interest in the mesne profits decree, which appeal being turned down, a Special Leave Petition was filed and is now pending in the Supreme Court.

3. However, it is contended that insofar as the basic quantum of the mesne profit is concerned, the decree in that regard still stands and as such, the petitioner/decree-holder should be at liberty to proceed with the execution case, of course, subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition.

4. It is further submitted that the learned trial Judge, without adverting to such aspect of the matter, granted a blanket stay of the execution case, although there is no appeal pending in this court now.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/judgment debtor argues that there is a pending application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the executing court at the behest of the judgment debtor/opposite party, where the primary objection taken to the executability of the decree for mesne profits is that the matter pertains to a commercial dispute within the contemplation of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2015 Act‟) and as such the trial court did not have jurisdiction to pass the decree itself.

6. Furthermore, learned counsel submits that an appeal was also preferred against the mesne profits decree by the judgment debtor before this court, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same.

7. The condonation application having been dismissed, the appeal was also dismissed consequentially as time-barred and as such, there was no adjudication on merits on the point now being raised.

8. It is submitted that this court, sitting in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to interfere with the grant of stay by the executing court, in view of the trial court palpably having no jurisdiction within the contemplation of the 2015 Act to pass the decree itself.

9. Learned counsel submits that in the event the issue pertains to inherent lack of jurisdiction, the matter hits at the very root of the decree and as such the execution cannot be proceeded with.

10. Furthermore, learned counsel cites Section 15 of the 2015 Act to argue that in the event a suit or other proceeding pertains to a commercial dispute, the same has to be transferred to the commercial court having jurisdiction as a matter of course.

11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the scope of the dispute, this court is of the opinion that the dispute which arose in the original suit for eviction and mesne profits does not come within the purview of “commercial dispute” as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act.

12. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor/opposite party has argued that the tenancy agreement between the parties pertained to a property where a petrol pump business was being run by the opposite party all along.

13. Thus, the agreement is commercial in nature and, as such, the suit was covered within the contemplation of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act.

14. However, a bare perusal of the said provision indicates that to come within the ambit of “commercial dispute”, the dispute, in the first place, has to arise out of (as applicable in the present case) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.

15. In