A loan transaction entered into for a commercial purpose, such as movie production, qualifies as a commercial transaction under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for the purpose of filing a commercial suit for recovery of money.

O R D E R

Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, returning the plaint requiring the plaintiff to delete the defendants 1 & 2 from the party array and to file the suit as an ordinary suit instead of a commercial suit.

2. Heard Mr. Ravi Raja Bappu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In view of the fact that the plaint has been returned without being numbered, notice to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.

3. Mr. Ravi Raja Bappu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Court must look into the allegations in the plaint and decide as to whether it is a commercial suit or not. According to him, a loan transaction which done for a commercial purpose, namely, production of a movie would be a commercial transaction and therefore, a suit filed for recovery of money based on such loan transaction would be a commercial suit.

4. The learned counsel is supported by the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabai Enterprises Ltd., Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 and the Judgment of Bombay High Court in Bharat Muddanna Shetty Vs. Ahuja Properties and Developers. The learned Principal Judge has taken a very strict interpretation of the provision particularly Section 2(c)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act to come to the conclusion that the suit transaction will not qualify as a commercial transaction. I am unable to subscribe the view of the learned Principal Judge. Once the plaintiff avers that advance was made for commercial purpose and claims a decree for recovery of money, the same would be a commercial transaction and any other view cannot be justified.

5. As regards the second aspect, namely, to delete the defendants 1 and 2, I am of the considered opinion that the direction of the learned Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is in order. The prayer for recovery of money is only made against the third defendant and the defendants 1 and 2 have been roped in as persons, who have introduced the third defendant to the plaintiff. They cannot be made liable. The lis being a money suit based on the promissory note only parties to the transaction can be made parties to the suit. Therefore, the learned Principal Judge was justified in directing the plaintiff to strike off the defendants 1 and 2 from the party array.

6. This Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The Plaintiff is permitted to represent the suit as commercial suit after deleting the defendants 1 and 2 from the party array and the learned Principal Judge is directed to number the suit as commercial suit and dispose it of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.