2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9479

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RAVI V HOSMANI
BANGALORE BLUES ENTRERTAINMENT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ONE IKIGAII EDUTECH PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent
MFA/6392/2022

1. Suit for injunction is maintainable before civil Court, unless both twin requirements i.e., dispute falling within definition of Section 2(1)(c) of C.C. Act as well as of specified value more than stipulated in Section 2(1)(i) of CC Act were complied. 2. Specified value of suit in respect of immovable property, would be market value of such immovable property as on date of filing suit. 3. All suits involving Commercial disputes should be filed only before Commercial Court, even if ‘specified value’ was less than Rs.3 Lakhs and requiring its examination by Commercial Court. 4. Plaintiff has to specifically state in plaint ‘specified value’ as per provisions of CC Act, which trial Court would verify while deciding its jurisdiction, before proceeding to entertain suit and to return it for re-presentation before Commercial Court, in case, it was not.

Headnote:

COMMERCIAL DISPUTES - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - COMMERCIAL COURT - SUIT FOR INJUNCTION - SPECIFIED VALUE - DETERMINATION - COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 - SECTION 2(1)(c)(vii), 12, 134 - TRADE MARKS ACT - SECTION 134 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - SECTION 6, 14(1)(a) AND (d), 37, 42 AND 41(e) - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 - Whether impugned order passed by trial Court allowing I.A.no.1 filed by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC calls for interference?

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and lawful running of business by plaintiff therein and also restraining defendants from forcibly dispossessing plaintiff from suit schedule property other than under due process of law etc. In said suit plaintiff filed IA no.1 for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in respect of building by name 'Swamy Legato' constructed over land bearing new Sy.no.20./7, old Sy.no.20/4, Kadubisanahalli village, Marthahalli Outer Ring road, Bengaluru - insofar as 4th floor with super built up area of 7454 sq.ft., 5th floor with super built up area of 4064 sq. ft. and terrace open area of 3390 sq.ft. with four car park spaces in basement and 7 car par spaces on ground floor of said building (for short 'suit property'). Said application was opposed by defendant no.1. On consideration, trial Court passed impugned order allowing I.A.no.1 and restraining defendants from interfering with possession of plaintiff over suit property. Challenging same this appeal is filed.

Finding of the Court:

1. Suit for injunction is maintainable before civil Court, unless both twin requirements i.e., dispute falling within definition of Section 2(1)(c) of C.C. Act as well as of specified value more than stipulated in Section 2(1)(i) of CC Act were complied.2. Specified value of suit in respect of immovable property, would be market value of such immovable property as on date of filing suit.3. All suits involving Commercial disputes should be filed only before Commercial Court, even if ‘specified value’ was less than Rs.3 Lakhs and requiring its examination by Commercial Court.4. Plaintiff has to specifically state in plaint ‘specified value’ as per provisions of CC Act, which trial Court would verify while deciding its jurisdiction, before proceeding to entertain suit and to return it for re-presentation before Commercial Court, in case, it was not.

Issues: 1. Whether suit for injunction is maintainable before civil Court?2. Whether specified value of suit in respect of immovable property, would be market value of such immovable property as on date of filing suit?3. Whether all suits involving Commercial disputes should be filed only before Commercial Court, even if ‘specified value’ was less than Rs.3 Lakhs and requiring its examination by Commercial Court?4. Whether plaintiff has to specifically state in plaint ‘specified value’ as per provisions of CC Act, which trial Court would verify while deciding its jurisdiction, before proceeding to entertain suit and to return it for re-presentation before Commercial Court, in case, it was not?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Unless both twin requirements i.e., dispute falling within definition of Section 2(1)(c) of C.C. Act as well as of specified value more than stipulated in Section 2(1)(i) of CC Act were complied, suit for injunction is maintainable before civil Court.2. Specified value of suit in respect of immovable property, would be market value of such immovable property as on date of filing suit.3. All suits involving Commercial disputes should be filed only before Commercial Court, even if ‘specified value’ was less than Rs.3 Lakhs and requiring its examination by Commercial Court.4. Plaintiff has to specifically state in plaint ‘specified value’ as per provisions of CC Act, which trial Court would verify while deciding its jurisdiction, before proceeding to entertain suit and to return it for re-presentation before Commercial Court, in case, it was not.

Final Decision: Appeal is disposed of directing plaintiff to plead regarding specified value of suit, within 15 days from today. Trial Court is directed to determine whether same would be below threshold limit specified in CC Act and consequently decide on its jurisdiction to entertain suit, as expeditiously as possible therefrom after providing opportunity to defendants also, but not later than 30 days. In case, suit is held not maintainable, interim injunction would stand vacated with liberty to plaintiff to seek said relief before Commercial Court.