122 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:16.02.2026 DINESH KUMAR JAIN ...Petitioner Vs.

M/S GROVER INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 07.01.2026 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panipat. By the said order, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner assails the impugned order on the grounds that the dismissal was unjust and contrary to the provisions of law, and prays for appropriate interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs. 3,61,611/- along with interest, contending that the dispute constitutes a commercial dispute triable by the Commercial Courts. The defendant/petitioner challenged the maintainability of the suit by filing an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the ground that the plaint does not disclose any commercial dispute and, therefore, is not entertainable by the Commercial Court, and that the plaint is liable to be rejected. The application was contested by the respondent/plaintiff.

However, by the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge, Panipat, dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that the suit constitutes a commercial dispute within the meaning of Clause 1 of Section 2(i) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and further observed that Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 empowers the partners of a registered firm to institute such a suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the application, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition seeking appropriate relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, contending that the order is erroneous both in law and on facts.

3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper-book carefully.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Civil Judge has committed a material illegality, as not every civil suit involving recovery of money or arising between business entities automatically qualifies as a commercial dispute triable by the Commercial Courts. It was argued that the suit in the present case cannot be tried by a Commercial Court, as it lacks jurisdiction to entertain an ordinary money recovery claim. The petitioner further submitted that there is no specific authorization in favor of Harish Kumar, a partner, to institute the suit, and therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

5. A perusal of the plaint, however, reveals that the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that it is a registered partnership firm and that Harish Kumar is one of its registered partners. The learned Civil Judge, therefore, rightly concluded that a registered partner of a partnership firm is entitled to act on behalf of the firm, and no separate authorization is required to institute the suit in the name of the registered partner. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner regarding maintainability is without merit.

6. The present suit arises out of the enforcement of various invoices issued by the plaintiff firm, pursuant to which the defendant had purchased different types and sizes of Tufted PP Cut Pile Carpet “Go Green” on a credit basis. The dispute, therefore, pertains to the recovery of payments arising from commercial transactions between business entities. For the purpose of determining the maintainability of the suit before the Commercial Court, it is pertinent to refer to the definition of a “commercial dispute” as provided under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. In the present c