$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 07.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.01.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.01.2026 + RFA(COMM) 348/2024 PRAMOD KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Rai, Adv.

versus M/S GANNON DUNKERLEY AND CO. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vaibhav Tyagi and Mr.

Kartikeya Misra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The present Appeal, preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as „CC Act‟], challenges the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2024 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] passed by the Commercial Court, whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Appellant‟s suit for recovery, holding that the dispute did not qualify as a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of the CC Act.

2. The Appellant is before this Court on a limited legal grievance i.e., that even if the Commercial Court correctly identified the dispute as non-commercial, it erred in law by dismissing the suit instead of returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referre