IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M/S ALPHA CORP. DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.

..Petitioner Versus KRISHNA KUMAR ..Respondent Reserved on: 04.02.2026 Pronounced on : 09.02.2026 Uploaded on: 09.02.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl.A.G. Punjab for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral)

1. The present civil revision is filed for setting aside order dated 18.08.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram, whereby, the review petition filed by the petitioner/defendant has been erroneously dismissed and order dated 23.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram, whereby, it has been held that the dispute is not commercial in nature.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.09.2017 Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was executed between the petitioner and respondent for the development of a commercial complex on land measuring 2.05 acres on 04.09.2017 special power of attorney was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner.

3. On 06.12.2017, an addendum to Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was executed, increasing the share of the respondent in the developed area from 35,000 sq.ft. to 55,000 sq.ft. On 16.11.2023, respondent instituted civil suit No.3450 of 2023 seeking a declaration that Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and ancillary documents are null and void. On 02.12.2023, petitioner filed itself first application under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 04.12.2023 respondent filed reply to the first application filed by the petitioner. On 02.04.2024, petitioner filed another application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC read with Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that learned Civil Court had no jurisdiction since the dispute is commercial in nature. On 20.04.2024 respondent filed reply to the application. Vide order dated 23.04.2025 learned Civil Judge Jr. Division, Gurugram dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by holding that the dispute is not commercial. On 19.05.2025, petitioner filed review application against order dated 23.04.2025 which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Gurugram on 18.08.2025. Hence, the present civil revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and, therefore, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram lacks jurisdiction. He further contends that Clause 16.12 of the Joint Development Agreement (JDA) contains a valid and binding arbitration agreement which ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Court as per Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

5. He further contends that learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurugram that the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner during the arguments on additional application, that ground under Section 8 is not pressed at that stage since the dispute was commercial in nature and only the Commercial Court could decide the same was wrongly taken as waiver of the right to arbitrate. He further contends that there is exclusive jurisdiction clause i.e. arbitration clause which stipulates that the place of arbitration shall be Delhi and Delhi shall have jurisdictions thereby, excluding the jurisdiction of Courts in Gurugram. And further that the review filed against order dated 23.04.2025 and 18.08.2025 was also wrongly dismissed as not maintainable. He, therefore, prays that both the orders be set aside and the present petition be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner itself has not complied with mandatory provision of Section 8(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. He further contends that the dispute is not commercial in nature as defined under Section 2(c