IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL th ON THE 15 OF APRIL, 2024 CIVIL REVISION NO.24/2024 BETWEEN:-

1. M/S BHOPAL FRACTURE HOSPITAL THROUGH PARTNER DR. KAMLESH KUMAR VERMA E-3/01 ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DR. KAMLESH KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE SHRI S.P. VERMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PARTNER M/S BHOPAL FARCTURE HOSPITAL R/O 55 KHANUJA ENCLAVE E-9/ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. DR. SANDEEP SHARMA S/O SHRI O.P.

SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PARTNER M/S BHOPAL FRACTURE HOSPITAL R/O 7/658 ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. DR. SHASHANK AGRAWAL S/O SHRI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PARTNER M/S BHOPAL FRACTURE HOSPITAL R/O E-3/38A ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

.….PETITIONERS (BY SHRI QASIM ALI - ADVOCATE)

AND SAVITRI DEVI VIJAYWARGIYA S/D/W/Thru:- LATE RADHA VALLABH VIJAYWARGIYA FLAT NO. 102-103 RADHA VALLABH Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI COMPLEX PLOT NO. 130 MALVIYA NAGA BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT (NONE)

_______________________________________________________________

This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage.

2. The present civil revision has been filed under Section 115 of CPC against order dated 03.10.2023 passed in RCS No.286-A of 2022, by 7^th Civil Judge, Senior Division. Bhopal whereby, petitioners application under Section 7 Rule

11 CPC has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the dispute between the parties is prima-facie a commercial dispute as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Commercial dispute is defined under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act. (hereinafter referred as “Act”). From bare perusal of aforesaid provision, it is apparently clear that all the disputes arising out of an agreement for an immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce is a commercial dispute. It is clear from Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that as per lease dated 01.02.2013, respondent had given suit property on lease to the petitioners for running hospital and allied services. Respondent has valued the suit as Rs.23,25,780/-. and thus, subject matter of the dispute between the parties is also more than Rs.3,00,000/-as per Section 2(1)(i) read with section 12 of the “Act”. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to Section 12(1)(a) of the “Act”.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI

4. As per Section 6 of the Act, the Commercial Courts will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the commercial dispute arising in their territory. From bare reading of Section 6 of Commercial Courts Act, it is clear that XVIII Civil Judge Senior Division, the designated Commercial Court at Bhopal, will have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. In view of above, learned trial Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in holding that. from bare perusal of first lease agreement dated 26.04.1999, it cannot be concluded that at the time of execution of the said lease deed, the property was used exclusively for trade and commerce. As from bare reading of para-2 and 3 of the plaint, it is abundantly clear that petitioners have always intended to use the leased property for running hospital and same was always impliedly consented by the respondent and thus the parties had absolute meeting of mind as to the use of the suit property for commercial purpose at the time of execution of the lease deed dated 26.04.1999.

5. For the purpose of Commercial Courts Act, it is not only the averments made in the plaint which can be looked into but the entire documents and pleadings of defendant can also be looked into to ascertain