The court has the authority to transfer a suit to a Commercial Court under Section 24 of the CPC, even if it was initially filed in an ordinary civil court.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 27.09.2022 and 25.01.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-02, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (in short “Trial Court”) in CS DJ ADJ no.

853/2019 titled as “Jageshwar Dayal vs. K.K Kapoor” whereby while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short “ CPC ”) filed by the respondent herein as well as an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 moved by the petitioner herein, the learned Trial Court returned the plaint along with the relevant documents on the ground that it lacks jurisdiction to try the present suit as the dispute involved is commercial in nature and the petitioner ought to have filed the said suit before the designated Commercial Court.

2. The relevant facts culminating into filing of the present petition are that on 26.07.2016, the petitioner instituted a suit against the respondent before the Court of learned ADJ-03, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. ADJ-03”) seeking recovery of Rs. 8,94,882/- for the piping work done at Delhi Cantonment and Khatri, Rajasthan.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that upon completion of the work, he submitted a final bill for a sum of Rs. 27,93,458/- to the respondent. Out of the aforesaid amount, the respondent made substantial payments totaling Rs. 21,04,000/- on various dates and the last payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made on 22.04.2015. However, after the last payment, the respondent allegedly avoided making further payments for the remaining amount on one pretext or the other. Subsequently, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 23.06.2016. The respondent neither replied to the said notice nor made any payment. Consequently, the petitioner filed the suit for recovery before the Court of learned ADJ-03.

4. The respondent to contest the said suit, filed the written statement and later filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC . Vide order dated 27.07.2018, the Court of learned Additional District Judge-03 allowed the said application and held that the respondent resides and carries on his business in Janakpuri, New Delhi, therefore, the suit falls within the jurisdiction of Dwarka Courts, South-West District, Delhi.

Furthermore, the learned ADJ-03 issued directions to return the plaint along with the documents to the petitioner for presenting the same before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts.

5. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before this Court by way of revision petition bearing CRP No. 194/2018 which was dismissed on 14.08.2019. Thereafter, on 16.08.2019, the petitioner moved an application under Order VII Rule 10A CPC before the learned Additional District Judge-03 seeking the return of the plaint along with documents and for fixing a date of appearance before the Dwarka Courts, South-West District, Delhi. The same was allowed vide order dated 18.09.2019. 6. Subsequently, on 14.10.2019, the petitioner filed the returned plaint along with accompanying documents before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. Additionally, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 CPC along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act seeking to exclude the time between the order of return of plaint and its presentation before the Court. The suit was subsequently registered as CS DJ ADJ 853/2019.

7. Following that, the petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for placing on record the relevant documents which was allowed by order dated 24.11.2021. Subsequently, the respondent filed a reply to the petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act along with an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC requesting the rejection of the plaint on the basis of being time-barred.

8. At the stage of disposal of the pending applications, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 27.09.2022 held that it has n