The court affirmed that disputes arising from construction contracts are commercial in nature under the Commercial Courts Act, thus falling within the jurisdiction of commercial courts.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order.

2. The petitioners are the defendants in C.S.No.27/2022 on the file of Commercial Court (Sub Court), Attingal, which was filed for recovery of money amounting to Rs.16,12,843/-, being the alleged balance payment due to the respondent from the petitioners towards construction of a building. The petitioners have filed Ext.P2 application as I.A.No.6/2024 for rejecting the suit under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC contending that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit. The main contention raised by the petitioners is that a commercial suit will lie only if it is a transaction of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents including enforcement and interpretation of such documents of a specified value and the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff in the suit, has no such case. The respondent filed Ext.P3 objection to Ext.P2, filed as I.A. No.6 of 2024 seeking rejection of the plaint, wherein it is specifically contended that in para Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of the plaint it is stated that the contract between the plaintiff and defendants is pertaining to construction of a commercial building and the dispute is covered by Section 2 (c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act and that the suit also is filed for the alleged dues out of the said contract. It is also contended that the petitioners were set ex parte for not filing the written statement within time, which is also a mandate of . The Court by Ext.P4, dismissed Ext.P2 request for rejecting the plaint, against which an appeal was preferred as Ext.P5, which was not taken to file, since the impugned order is not one, for which an appeal is provided under Order XLIII of CPC as stated in the proviso to Section 13 (1) of . It is aggrieved by the same that the present original petition has been filed.

3. The contention raised by the petitioners is that a commercial suit will lie only relating to disputes in the ordinary transaction of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents including enforcement and interpretation of such documents of a specified value. But the specific case of the respondent in Ext.P3 objection is that the dispute is one covered by Section 2 (c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act , which deals with construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders.

I have gone though the averments in Ext.P1 plaint which would show that there are averments in the plaint which could bring in the suit within Section 2 (c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts, Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P4 order and the original petition is accordingly dismissed.