The court affirmed the jurisdictional transfer of commercial disputes under Section 24 of CPC when improperly filed.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner for the transfer of the suit bearing no. CS DJ No. 4164/2024 (‘the Suit’), filed under Order XXXVII of the CPC, 1908, seeking recovery of INR 76,66,932/- along with pendente-lite and future interest, from the learned District Judge- 05, Patiala House Court, to the learned District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Court. The Suit was inadvertently filed as an ordinary suit and was therefore listed before the learned District Judge.

2. It is submitted that since the dispute arises out of an Agreement dated 02.09.2020 (hereinafter the ‘Agreement’) executed between the parties, whereby the petitioner agreed to render services to locate a suitable property for the respondents at Capital Court, Munirka and to manage the negotiation and execution of the transaction, it falls within the definition of a ‘commercial dispute’ as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Signature Not Verified TR.P.(C.) 59/2025 Page 1 of 4 Digitally Signed Courts Act, 2015, and is therefore exclusively triable by the Commercial Court, Patiala House Court.

3. The Agreement, inter alia, stipulated that the petitioner will be entitled to a Success Fee equivalent to 2 % of the total sale consideration of the property to be purchased by the respondents.

4. Following several rounds of negotiations facilitated by the petitioner, the sale transaction of the Property i.e., “Apartment/Unit bearing No. 106 B, Left Wing at 6th Floor, having a super area measuring 552.77 sq. mt. together with right to park four cars bearing Nos 27, 28, 32 and 33 in the basement of the commercial building known as 'The Capital Court', made over Plot No. M.S.- 1, at Local Shopping Centre, Munirka Phase-III, New Delhi-110067”, was concluded, and a Sale Deed dated 27.08.2021 was executed on 02.09.2021 between the transferor of the Property and the respondent no. 3 in the present Petition.

5. It is submitted that notwithstanding the discharge of its obligations in terms of the Agreement, the respondents refused to make payment of the Success Fee to the petitioner, as contractually agreed, which resulted in the filing of the Suit. It is further submitted that pre-suit mediation under section 12A (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was instituted on 19.10.2022. The respondents were called upon to participate in the mediation process for which proceedings were scheduled for 14.11.2022 and 17.12.2022. However, despite issuance of notices the respondents did not participate in the pre-suit mediation. Thus, the process of mediation was treated as non-

starter.

6. Subsequently, the Suit was filed and listed before the learned District Signature Not Verified TR.P.(C.) 59/2025 Page 2 of 4 Digitally Signed Judge, Patiala House Courts on 27.08.2024. Summons were issued to the respondents on the said date. Thereafter, on 25.11.2024, when the Suit came up before the learned District Judge, the petitioner was directed to place on record the original Agreement from which the dispute emanates and the next date was notified as 27.01.2025.

7. It is submitted that during the course of hearing on 27.01.2025, it was put to the petitioner that the Suit will have to be filed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and as such will have to be heard before the District Judge (Commercial), Patiala House Court. Hence the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

8. It is rightly contended by the petitioner that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) vests the Court with the power to transfer any proceedings pending before its subordinate Courts. In particular, Section 24(5) of the CPC, specifically provides for the transfer of any proceedings pending before a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it.

9. It is noticed that in a similar case, Namita Gupta Vs. Suraj Holdings Limited, 20