Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Fedora Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Apple Bio Technologies And Another on 12 August, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
1
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
APHC010105352022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3209]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
TR. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 83/2022
&
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:
N 2570 of 2023
Tr.C.M.P.No.83 of 2022
Between:
M/s Fedora Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. ...PETITIONER
AND
Apple Bio Technologies and another ...RESPONDENTS
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner :
M/s. O M R LAW FIRM
Counsel for the Respondent
Respondents:
1. Mr. V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.V.L.N.SARMA
COMMON ORDER:
As the issues involved in the present cases are inter
inter-linked,
linked, the same
are disposed of by a Common Order.
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are
arrayed in Transfer C.M.P.No.83 of 2022.
3. Heard Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr.V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned Senior
Counsel representing the respondents.
4. Perused the material on record as also the written submissions on
behalf of both sides.
Brief Facts:
5. The petitioner / M/s.Fedora Sea Foods Private Limited filed O.S.No.59
of 2021 before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Nellore seeking
recovery of a sum of Rs.9,55,74,429/-, from the respondents, which is due
towards the purchase of Aqua feed on credit basis and interest thereon. Along
with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.88 of 2021 seeking attachment before
Judgment and an ex parte order of conditional attachment was passed on
20.09.2021. On receipt of notices, the respondents filed an application
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
I.A.No.131 of 2021 before the Trial Court for rejection of the plaint under
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') r/w Order VII Rule
11 (d) of C.P.C., stating that the alleged transactions mentioned in the plaint
comes under the definition of commercial dispute, that the plaintiff has to file
the suit before the Commercial Court established at Vijayawada and Nellore
District also comes under the jurisdiction of Commercial Court at Vijayawada.
Thereafter, the petitioner on 08.03.2022 filed the present Transfer Petition
under Section 24 (5) r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., seeking transfer of the suit
i.e., O.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the VIII Additional District
Judge, Nellore to the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes,
Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada. Pending adjudication of the Transfer Petition,
stay of all further proceedings in the said suit was sought for and a learned
Judge, granted interim orders on 15.03.2022. The respondents filed a petition
to vacate the interim orders on 28.03.2022.
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
6. In the meanwhile, the respondents on 07.03.2022 filed C.R.P.No.515 of
2022 before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia
contending that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and has to dispose of the
I.A.No.131 of 2021 for rejection of the plaint before proceeding with the main
suit. Against the order of attachment before Judgment dated 20.09.2021, the
respondents filed C.M.A.No.209 of 2023 with a petition to condone the delay
in preferring the same, but a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide Orders
dated 17.08.2023 dismissed the petition. Thereafter, the respondents on
22.09.2023 filed the above C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023 to reject the plaint by
exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Subsequently, the respondents withdrew C.R.P.No.515 of 2022 on
16.10.2023, in view of filing of C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023.
7. Mr.O.Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, made elaborate submissions. While stating that the suit
O.S.No.59 of 2021 instituted by the petitioner is commercial in nature, he
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
submits that the Commercial Court at Vijayawada started functioning from
04.03.2020 and the Presiding Officer took charge on 09.07.2020. However,
since the said Court started functioning during the Covid period, the same was
not within the petitioner's knowledge, that at the time of numbering the suit, no
objections were raised, much less with regard to the institution of the suit in
the District Court at Nellore, when the Commercial Court for Trial of
Commercial Disputes is functioning at Vijayawada. After institution of the suit,
even the learned District Judge granted an order of attachment before
judgment and as it was noticed later that the commercial disputes are required
to be tried by the Commercial Courts, the learned Senior Counsel submits that
the petitioner, therefore, filed the above Transfer C.M.P., under Section 24 (5)
of C.P.C., for transfer of the suit.
8. Placing strong reliance on the decision of a learned Judge of the
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Thirmala Reddy
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Mahalakshmamma v. Mulkluri Murlidhar Rao 1 , the 54th report of Law
Commission of India on the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 06.02.1973,
more particularly, the recommendation with reference to Section 24 of C.P.C.,
and the incorporation of Section 24 (5) in pursuance thereof, the learned
Senior Counsel addressed detailed arguments. He submits that prior to
incorporation of Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., with effect from 01.02.1977, there is
no specific provision providing for transfer of cases filed in a Court, which is
not having a jurisdiction to the Court having jurisdiction. In fact, the learned
Senior Counsel submits that some of the High Courts followed the said
decision, but some of them took a different view.
9. In order to clarify the position and as it is better to adopt a wider view in
the light of the decision of the A.P.High Court in Thirmala Reddy
Mahalakshmamma (referred to 1 supra), the learned counsel submits that the
Law Commission recommended an explanation to be added to Section 24 of
C.P.C., which is incorporated by way of sub-section (5). While stating that the
AIR 1970 A.P., 194
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
issue with regard to insertion of Section 24 (5) as also Order 7, Rule 10-A and
10-B of C.P.C., was succinctly discussed in the decision of Madhusudan Das
Agarwal v. Banaras Hindu University 2, the learned counsel emphatically
contends that Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., empowers the High Court to transfer a
suit from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it and the prayer seeking
transfer of the suit filed by the petitioner, merits acceptance.
10. Insofar as the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the learned
Senior Counsel submits that Section 15 of the said Act contemplates that all
suits and the applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value
pending in a High Court or a Civil Court shall be transferred to the Commercial
Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be. According to the learned
counsel, Section 15 (5) of the Commercial Courts Act would not be applicable
to the facts of the present case as it deals with a situation with regard to non-
transfer of suits or applications, which are pending as on the date of
commencement of the Commercial Courts Act, but not in respect of the other
2015 Law Suit(ALL) 1864
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
cases which are instituted of the said Act came into force. He reiterates that
Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., empowers the transfer of a case of a commercial
dispute filed after commencement of the Commercial Courts Act in a Civil
Court to the concerned Commercial Court dealing with such disputes.
11. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that the Commercial Court
is a Court sub-ordinate to the High Court, invocation of powers under Section
24 (5) of C.P.C., is therefore valid and tenable. The learned counsel also
relies on the decisions of different High Courts reported in Krishna Kumar
Damani v. Ramnarain Agarwal & Other3, C.K.Surendran v. Kunhimoosa4
and Jalagam Sitarama Rao v. The State of A.P.,5 etc.
12. Coming to the Revision Petition i.e., C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023 seeking
rejection of the plaint, the learned Senior Counsel referring to the averments in
the counter-affidavit filed therein submits that the respondents earlier filed
C.R.P.No.515 of 2022, withdrew the same and filed C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023
AIR 1984 Calcutta 162
2021 LawSuit(Ker) 1432
AIR 1978 AP 82
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
on the premise that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by
the petitioner. He contends that the petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable in as much as the C.P.C - a self
contained code provides for a remedy and envisages a specific provision
under Order VII, Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, that it cannot be by-passed.
He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai & Others v.
Tuticorin Educational Society6. He submits that having availed the remedy
under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of C.P.C., and filed C.R.P.No.515 of 2022 to
dispose of the application I.A.No.131 of 2021 and later withdrew the same, the
respondents cannot maintain the present Revision Petition. The learned
Senior Counsel also points out that against the Order of attachment before
judgment, the respondents filed C.M.A.No.209 of 2023 and after suffering an
adverse Order, they filed C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023 and the same is not
sustainable.
(2019) 9 SCC 538
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
13. The learned Senior Counsel further argues that though certain
amendments were made to C.P.C., about it's applicability to the commercial
disputes, in terms of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, the same is in
respect of some of the provisions as specified in the Schedule and the
applicability of Section 24 of C.P.C., has not been excluded. In such a
situation, he emphasizes that Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., being an independent
provision would empower the High Court to transfer a suit from the Civil Court
to the Commercial Court. Strong reliance in this regard is placed on the
decision of the Delhi High Court dated 09.01.2024 in CM(M) 457/2023 & CM
APPL.13615/2023 (Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Limited). Making the said
submissions and placing reliance on the other decisions filed along with the
citations compilation, the learned Senior Counsel seeks to allow the Transfer
Petition and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.
14. On the other hand, Mr.V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, the learned Senior Counsel
while referring to the list of dates, advanced arguments at length. Drawing the
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of
Transfer C.M.P., he contends that the suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 was admittedly
filed on 13.09.2021 after the establishment of Commercial Court at
Vijayawada and in such circumstances, the Civil Court at Nellore has no
jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all, yet an order of attachment before
judgment was granted. He submits that though the said aspect with regard to
jurisdiction was brought to the notice of the Court by way of a Memo, the
same was returned and therefore, I.A.No.131 of 2021 was filed to reject the
plaint. As the said petition is being adjourned at the instance of the petitioner
herein, initially C.R.P.No.515 of 2022 seeking disposal of the said I.A., was
filed on 07.03.2022 and on the very next day i.e., 08.03.2022, the above
Transfer C.M.P., was filed. Insofar as C.M.A.No.209 of 2023 is concerned, he
submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench dismissed the same only on the
ground of delay without going into the issue as to the competency of the Civil
Court to grant an order of attachment before judgment when it has no
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
jurisdiction to entertain the suit at all and draws the attention of this Court to
the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench.
15. Referring to Section 15 (5) of the Commercial Courts Act, he submits
that in view of the said specific provision dealing with the transfer of pending
cases, any of the parties can make an application, on receipt of which the
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may withdraw such suit or
application from the Court before which it is pending and transfer the same for
disposal by the Commercial Division or Commercial Court as the case may
be. He submits that when the statute prescribes a specific procedure and a
provision with reference to it, the same has to be invoked and filling of a
Transfer petition under Section 24 of C.P.C., which is a general provision is
not tenable in Law. He also submits that Section 21 of the Commercial Courts
Act has overriding effect on the provisions of any other Law and therefore, the
submissions made with reference to Section 24(5) of C.P.C., merits no
appreciation. In support of his contentions, the learned Senior Counsel places
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
reliance on the decisions in V.Rajeshwar Rao(Dr.) v. M.Yadhagiri Reddy7,
Bank of India CBD Belapur Branch v. U.A.N.Raju8, M.Narayana Chowdary
v. Meharbaba Plots Owners Welfare Association9.
16. Contending that the case on hand is one of total lack of jurisdiction and
in such circumstances, the Court cannot return the plaint, but has to dismiss
the suit, he further pleads that the question of transfer of a case, filed in a
Court which has no jurisdiction to try the same does not arise at all. He also
contends that the transfer of suit under Section 24 of C.P.C., from Civil Court
to the Special Court dealing with the commercial disputes cannot be allowed
as the said section has no application to the Special Courts. He also submits
that the Commercial Court is a Special Court, it cannot be treated or equated
with any other ordinary Civil Court nor can it be brought with in the fold of
Section 24 of C.P.C. It is his contention that Section 24 of C.P.C., cannot be
invoked in the case of a Special Court although it has all the trappings of a
2007 (1) ALT 306 (DB)
2004(1) ALD 577 (DB)
2004 (2) ALT 23(S.B.)
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Civil Court. He submits that the invocation of Section 24 of C.P.C., would arise
only if the suit is properly instituted but in the present case, it is the admitted
case of the petitioner / plaintiff that the Court at Nellore has no jurisdiction at
all.
17. The learned counsel also contends that the plea of the petitioner that it
is not aware of the constitution of Commercial Court cannot be appreciated,
as ignorance of Law is not an excuse. He submits that as seen from the plaint,
there is no specific pleading that the matter pertains to commercial disputes
arising out of commercial transactions and obviously the plaint was drafted to
get over the jurisdiction, that if the plaint contains any plea or allegation having
semblance of commercial element, the Civil Court at Nellore would not have
entertained the suit.
18. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that as the transactions
between the parties are commercial in nature even as per the petitioner, filing
of the suit without following the procedure contemplated under Section 12-A of
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
the Commercial Courts Act, that too in an incompetent Court shall entail the
rejection of plaint. Placing strong reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Limited & Others v. Rakheja
Engineers Private Limited 10 , the learned Senior Counsel strenuously
contends that the plaint can be rejected in exercise of powers under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. He also placed reliance on the decisions of
High Court of Madras in Muthulakshmi v. Vijitha11, CRP No.1245 of 2017 &
batch dated 09.07.2019. In support of the various contentions advanced by
him, the learned Senior Counsel also referred to the decisions in Harshad
Chiman Lal Modi v. D.L.F. Universal Limited12, Bhojraj Srinivas v. Bhojraj
Divya13, A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC) Vijayawada v.
Meghavaram Power Pvt.Ltd., Hyderabad14, Bank of Rajashthan Ltd., v.
VCK Shares & Stock Broking Services Ltd.,(SC)15, Vidya Shanker Tiwari
(2022) 10 SCC 1
2021 (4) HLR 485
AIR 2006 SC 646
2023 (4) ALD 876 (TS) (DB)
2023 (4) ALD 284 (DB)
2023(1) ALD 197(SC)
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
v. Surya Kant Tiwari16, Raja Soap Factory & Others v. S.P.Shantharaj &
Others17, Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S.Infraspace LLP 18,
Neha Arun Jugadar v. Kumari Palak Diwanji (Transfer Petition (Civil) No.182
of 2011 dt.14.02.2011), Gulam IsmaIl v. Mirza Ibrahim Ali Baig 19 etc.,
Resting his arguments, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the Transfer
Petition and to allow the Civil Revision Petition.
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not entirely ousted and the matters only of a
specified value shall be tried by the Commercial Court and therefore the
contention that the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction is not tenable. Insofar
as the contention with reference to Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts
Act, he submits that the said Section has no application where there is an
urgency of securing orders and at any rate, the said section is applicable to
the cases filed after 20.08.2022 as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
2013 LS (ALL) 1829
AIR 1965 SC 1449
(2020) 15 SCC 585
(2003) 5 ALD 552
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Court in Patil Automation Private Ltd. He also contends that the analogy
sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the respondents with reference
to the Special Courts established under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing
(Prohibition) Act with the Commercial Courts is not correct. He also made
submissions distinguishing the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondents and submits that the same are not applicable to the facts of
the present case.
Consideration by the Court:-
20. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that both the learned
Senior Counsel advanced arguments extensively with reference to various
propositions of Law and the same would be discussed at the appropriate
place, to the extent they are relevant for the disposal of the present cases.
21. On an appreciation of the rival contentions, the following points arise
for consideration by the Court:
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
1. Whether the suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 instituted in the District Court, Nellore
after constitution of Commercial Court at Vijayawada can be transferred under
Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., and whether such a transfer amounts to violation of
Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, a special provision?
2. Whether the suit in question without compliance of Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act is maintainable?
3. Whether the suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 is liable to be rejected even without
application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., or
suo-motu exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
when the Civil Court is incompetent to entertain the suits of commercial
nature?
22. Before answering the points under consideration, it may be pertinent to
state here that there is no dispute that the Commercial Court dealing with the
commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act came to be
established at Vijayawada on 04.03.2020 and the Presiding Officer had taken
charge on 09.07.2020. The submission with regard to institution of the suit
i.e., O.S.No.59 of 2021 on 13.09.2021 at Nellore made on behalf of the
petitioner is that it is not aware of the establishment of Commercial Division at
Vijayawada during Covid time. Generally, such a plea that a party is not aware
of establishment of a Court having the competent jurisdiction with reference to
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
a dispute may merit no appreciation. But, this Court is not oblivious to the fact
situation prevailing during the pandemic. Therefore, the explanation of the
petitioner to the effect that is not aware of establishment of the Commercial
Court in Vijayawada as it had happened during Covid period, cannot be simply
brushed aside. That apart, even the District Court at Nellore had not raised
any objections, scrutinized the plaint and numbered the suit. Entertaining the
suit as instituted before it, the District Court on satisfying that a case is made
out, granted an interim order of attachment before judgment, instead of
returning the plaint.
Point No.1:
23. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
parties, made submissions detailed above with reference to Section 24 of
C.P.C., and Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act. While it is the broad
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Section 24 (5)
of C.P.C. empowers transfer of suits instituted in a Civil Court to the
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Commercial Division, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
contends that in the light of the specific provisions under the special
enactment i.e., Commercial Courts Act, the procedure contemplated under
Section 15 has to be adhered to.
24. A contention is also raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents to the effect that the Commercial Court being a Special Court
constituted under the Commercial Courts Act cannot be treated as a Civil
Court or to make it amenable to Section 24 of the C.P.C. Though the said
contention appears to be attractive at the first blush, the same merits no
acceptance. Section 24 of the C.P.C., as argued by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner was amended pursuant to the recommendations
made by the 54th Law Commission. Though an explanation to Section 24 of
C.P.C., was recommended, the legislature had incorporated Section 24 (5)
which contemplates that "a suit or proceeding may be transferred under the
said section from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it." The said
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
recommendation came to be made in the light of the decision of A.P.High
Court in Thirmala Reddy Mahalakshmamma case referred to supra, wherein
it was held that "the language of Section 24 of Civil Procedure Code is very
wide and there are no restrictions or impediments in the way of High Court
exercising the power of transfer merely because there is a dispute regarding
jurisdiction" and to clarify the position on account of the contrary views
expressed by different High Courts.
25. The High Court of Allahabad in Madhusudan Das Agarwal's case
discussed the issue concerning Section 24 of CPC vis-à-vis Order VII, Rule 10
of C.P.C., which was also amended by virtue of Civil Procedure Code
(Amendment Act, 1976). It would be apposite to extract the opinion expressed
by the Court for ready reference:-
"20. On combined reading of the aforesaid provisions of Section 24
(5) C.P.C. and Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C., it comes out that Section 24
(5) is absolutely independent of the provision contained in Order VII Rule
10 C.P.C., which was also added by the same Amendment Act No.104 of
1976. In order VII Rule 10 (1)(2), 10-A, 10-B C.P.C., the legislature
specifically provided a procedure for the court to follow in case the plaint is
to be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
been instituted. It relates to the suits which are instituted before a Court
which has no jurisdiction to try the same. In order to cure the defect in
jurisdiction, the legislature in these provisions empowered the Court where
the plaint is instituted, to pass orders for returning the plaint and its
institution and trial. In such cases, the trial is always de novo. However,
the legislature while incorporating the provision under Order VII Rule 10
C.P.C., incorporated a separate and independent provision in the shape of
sub-section (5) of Section 24 C.P.C. conferring power upon the District
Judge and the High Court to exercise the same for transfer of a suit or
proceedings, from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try. This applies to
the case where the suit or proceedings has been instituted in a Court
which has no jurisdiction. In other words, the initial lack of jurisdiction or
inherent lack of jurisdiction to entertain the suit or proceedings is being
allowed to be cured by an order which can be passed only by the District
Judge or the High Court under this provision. This provision does not
carry any qualification or restriction. The legislature has not provided any
conditions on the District Court or the High Court for such transfer under
Section 24 (5) C.P.C., while in a transfer of a suit under Order VII Rule 10
C.P.C., the legislature has provided specific conditions, procedure and the
manner in which the power can be exercised."
26. In Jalagam Sitaramarao's case referred 5 supra, the Division Bench of
erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, was dealing with an issue of transfer
of suits from the Agency Court to the Civil Court. A plea was taken to the
effect that the High Court cannot invoke the jurisdiction under Section 24 of
CPC to transfer a suit from an Agency Court, that C.P.C., does not apply to
Agency Area or Agency Court and that in any event, the transfer of suit
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
pending before any Agency Court could be made only to another Agency
Court, but not a Civil Court. Examining the matter with reference to the
provisions of the relevant enactments, the Hon'ble Division Bench opined that
"Section 24, among others, empowers the High Court to transfer any suit,
appeal or other proceeding pending in any subordinate Court to any Court
subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same and for the
exercise of the said power by the High Court, the suit, appeal or other
proceeding must be pending before a Court subordinate to the High Court." It
held that the Agency Court constituted under the Schedule Districts Act and
the A.P.Agency Rules framed therein is a Court subordinate to the High Court
and the High Court has power under Section 24 of C.P.C., to transfer the suit
pending in such Agency Court either to another Agency Court or to a Civil
Court.
27. In Namita Guptha's case referred to above, the High Court of Delhi
dealt with a similar situation like in the case on hand. The respondent before
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
the High Court filed a suit seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,07,37,545.07 ps.,
along with the interest from Namita Guptha / defendant in the suit and the
learned Additional District Judge treated the suit as an ordinary Civil Suit and
issued summons. A written statement was filed along with a counter claim for
Rs.40,62,882/- together with interest. Thereafter, Namita Guptha filed an
application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC contending inter alia that the suit
involves a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the
Commercial Courts Act of the specified value and has been filed without resort
to the Pre-Institution mediation as contemplated under Section 12-A of the
Act, the plaint is liable to be rejected as barred by law. The learned Additional
District Judge on noticing that the dispute raised in the suit is commercial in
nature, directed the file of the suit to be placed before the learned Principal
District & Sessions Judge for appropriate orders. The learned Principal District
Judge, in turn, transferred the suit to the learned District Judge, Commercial
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Court. Aggrieved by the same, Namita Gupta carried the matter to the High
Court of Delhi.
28. Before the High Court, it was inter alia contended that both the learned
Additional District Judge as also District & Sessions Judge do not have the
power to transfer the suit, which is filed as an ordinary suit to a Commercial
Court, that the plaint does not meet the requirements in terms of Section 12-A
of the Commercial Courts Act and the plaint should have been rejected /
returned. A specific contention was also raised with reference to Section 24 of
C.P.C., that even assuming that the said provision would apply, a Commercial
Court constituted under the Act is not a Court subordinate to the Court of
Principal District & Sessions Judge and the learned Principal District Judge
did not have the power to transfer the suit to a Commercial Court.
29. Referring to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act including
Section 15 (1) & (5), 16 and 18, the learned Judge had recorded a categorical
finding at Para No.36, which is reproduced hereunder:
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
"36. A reading of the above provisions would show that the Act provides
for the constitution of Commercial Courts and Commercial Divisions of the High
Courts to adjudicate on commercial disputes of a specified value. However, the
implementation of the said provisions and the overall administrative control over
these Courts remains vested with the High Courts and, therefore, Commercial
Courts would be a Court Subordinate to the High Courts. Section 24 of the CPC
is not amended by the Act or by the Schedule appended thereto, therefore, there
is no reason for it to be not applied to a Suit relating to a commercial dispute of a
Specified Value."
30. The learned Judge has also referred to the decisions of different
Division Benches of the same Court wherein the provisions of C.P.C., i.e.,
Order VII, Rule 10 and Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act were dealt
with. After detailed analysis of the matter, it was opined that if a suit raises a
commercial dispute of a specified value, the ordinary Civil Court shall have no
jurisdiction to entertain the same and it must, therefore return the plaint in
exercise of its power under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. However, the learned
Judge further examined the question as to whether a duty to return the plaint
under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C., would take away the power of the Court
under Section 24 of C.P.C. Referring to the said provisions, the learned Judge
had categorically held that "all proceedings that were undertaken before the
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Court where a suit was earlier instituted, that it lacked jurisdiction to try the
suit, can be saved, and the suit on its transfer can be proceeded from the
point, at which it was transferred."
31. While answering Issue No.1 with regard to application of Section 24 of
C.P.C., to the commercial disputes, the learned Judge inter alia held as
follows:
"63. As noted hereinabove, Section 16 of the Act provides that the
provisions of the CPC shall apply to any Suit in respect of Commercial Dispute of
a Specified Value, subject to the amended provisions thereof as provided in the
Schedule appended to the Act. Section 24 of the CPC is not a provision which
has been amended by the said Schedule. It, therefore, continues to apply in full
force to a Suit in respect of a Commercial Dispute of a Specified Value. If the
Legislature wanted to take away this power from the Court, it would have
expressly stated so by deleting the said provision in the Schedule to the Act; it
did not do so. There is also no implied exclusion of this power, as this power, in
no manner, is in conflict with any provisions of the Act.
64. As far as non-compliance with Section 12A of the Act is concerned,
the Transferee Court shall consider the said objection on merits upon the transfer
of the Suit. The transfer of the Suit does not, in any manner, affect the right of the
defendant to contend that the Suit has been filed without any cause of action or
is otherwise barred by any provision of law or is liable to be dismissed under
Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for any other reason, including for the failure of the
plaintiff to initiate pre-suit mediation as mandated under Section 12A of the Act.
These objections would remain open to the defendant even on the transfer of the
Suit under Section 24 of the Act.
65. As held hereinabove, a Commercial Court, constituted under Section
3 of the Act, would be a Court subordinate to the High Court. Reference in this
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
regard may also be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Life
Insurance Corporation of India v. Nandini J. Shah & Ors., (2018) 15 SCC
356. Therefore, there is no reason to exclude the applicability of Section 24 of the
CPC to a Suit in relation to a Commercial dispute of a specified value. The first
issue is answered accordingly."
32. The learned Judge, however, while holding that the power under
Section 24 of the C.P.C., to transfer the suit is not available to the learned
District & Sessions Judge, yet in the interest of justice, in exercise of power
vested in the High Court under Section 24 of C.P.C., transferred the suit from
the Court of the learned Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge
(Commercial), to be tried from the stage, it is pending.
33. The said judgment of the learned Judge was carried by way of Special
Leave to Appeal (c) No.7955 of 2024 to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the
Apex Court dismissed the same vide Order dated 19.04.2024.
34. In the light of the decision in Namitha Guptha with reference to the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the Schedule thereunder vis-à-vis
the powers of the High Court under Section 24 of C.P.C., the reasoning
whereof was approved by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that in
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
exercise of powers under Section 24 of C.P.C., O.S.No.59 of 2021 instituted
before the District Court, Nellore can be transferred to the Commercial Court
at Vijayawada and such a transfer would not amount to violation of Section 15
of the Commercial Courts Act. The issue is answered accordingly in favour of
the petitioner.
Point No.2:
35. With reference to Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, it was
contended on behalf of the respondents that it is a mandatory provision and
since the same has not been complied with, the suit itself is liable to be
rejected.
36. Per contra, it was contended that Section 12-A is not applicable to the
cases where certain urgent orders are required to be obtained and at any rate,
the said section cannot be pressed into service in respect of the subject
matter suit which was instituted on 13.09.2021, in the light of the expression of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Patil Automation Private Ltd' that the said
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
section shall be applicable with effect from 20.08.2022. In the said case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was inter alia, dealing with a question as to whether
the statutory Pre-Litigation Mediation contemplated under Section 12-A of the
Commercial Courts Act as amended by the Amendment Act of 2018 is
mandatory and whether the Courts below have committed any error in not
allowing applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. The Hon'ble
Apex Court after considering the relevant aspects including the various
precedents at Para 113.1, declared that Section 12-A of the Act is mandatory
and held that any suit instituted violating mandates of S.12-A, must be visited
with rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. The Hon'ble Apex
Court also held that said power can be exercised even suo-motu by the Court,
but however made it clear that the said declaration would be effective from
20.08.2022, so that the stakeholders concerned become sufficiently informed.
In the light of the said expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
contention advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
deserves no acceptance. The suit in question is therefore maintainable. Point
No.2 answered accordingly.
Point No.3:
37. One of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondents is that
the suit in question can be rejected suo-motu, even without an application for
rejection of the plaint under Article 227 of the Constitution of India on the
premise that the Civil Court is lacking inherent jurisdiction and in such
circumstances, the question of transferring the suit would not arise at all. In
support of the contention, the learned counsel for the respondents had placed
reliance on Patil Automation Private Ltd.. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
examining the matter with reference to the provisions of the Commercial
Courts Act i.e., Section 12-A etc., and Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C., in the
facts of the said case, while opining that the Commercial Courts Act and the
Rules reveal the existence of a complete Code, expressed the view that
where on the allegations of the suit, it is found that the same is barred by any
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Law, the power under Order VII Rule 11 is available to the Court to be
exercised suo-motu. However, in the present case, initially the respondents
moved an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11
of C.P.C., then filed C.R.P.No.515 of 2022 aggrieved by non-disposal of the
same and thereafter withdrew it, stating that the present Revision Petition is
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While there may not be any
bar for adopting such a course of action, the institution of the same, in the
circumstances as stated in the counter-affidavit filed in C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023
cannot be lost sight of. Be that as it may.
38. It is settled Law that the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India shall be exercised sparingly. That apart, as contended by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the C.P.C., provides for specific provision for
rejection of plaint and having filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11
seeking rejection of the plaint, the respondents had not pursued the same, but
filed the present C.R.P.No.2570 of 2023.
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
39. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai's case,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with an appeal filed against the Order
of the High Court passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Against
the Order of the Trial Court granting an injunction, one of the defendants in the
suit filed a regular appeal vide C.M.A.No.1 of 2018 before the jurisdictional
Sub-Court under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C., whereas some of the
defendants instead of filing a regular appeal, filed a Civil Revision Petition
before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Despite
the objections to the maintainability of the Revision on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy under the Code, the High Court allowed the
Civil Revision Petition. Referring to the provisions of the C.P.C., the Hon'ble
Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:
11. Secondly, the High Court ought to have seen that when a remedy of appeal
under Section 104(1)(i) read with Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, was directly available, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have
taken recourse to the same. It is true that the availability of a remedy of appeal
may not always be a bar for the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High
Court. In A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan [A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu
v. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695] , this Court held that "though no hurdle
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it
is a well-recognized principle which gained judicial recognition that the High
Court should direct the party to avail himself of such remedies before he
resorts to a constitutional remedy".
12. But courts should always bear in mind a distinction between (i) cases
where such alternative remedy is available before civil courts in terms of the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, and (ii) cases where such alternative
remedy is available under special enactments and/or statutory rules and the
fora provided therein happen to be quasi-judicial authorities and tribunals. In
respect of cases falling under the first category, which may involve suits and
other proceedings before civil courts, the availability of an appellate remedy in
terms of the provisions of CPC, may have to be construed as a near total bar.
Otherwise, there is a danger that someone may challenge in a revision under
Article 227, even a decree passed in a suit, on the same grounds on which
Respondents 1 and 2 invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. This is why, a
3-member Bench of this Court, while overruling the decision in Surya Dev Rai
v. Ram Chander Rai [Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675] ,
pointed out in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath [Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath,
(2015) 5 SCC 423 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 67] that "orders of civil court stand on
different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunals or courts other than
judicial/civil courts".
13. Therefore wherever the proceedings are under the Code of Civil Procedure
and the forum is the civil court, the availability of a remedy under the CPC, will
deter the High Court, not merely as a measure of self-imposed restriction, but
as a matter of discipline and prudence, from exercising its power of
superintendence under the Constitution. Hence, the High Court ought not to
have entertained the revision under Article 227 especially in a case where a
specific remedy of appeal is provided under the Code of Civil Procedure itself.
40. In the light of the above decision and as this Court is of the opinion that
there are no exceptional circumstances, is not inclined to exercise the powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to reject the plaint.
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
41. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to deal with the decisions referred
to by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.
42. In Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
was dealing with an order where in the High Court of Gujarat set aside the
order passed by the Commercial Court under Order VII, Rule 10 of C.P.C.,
and directed that the plaint be returned to the appellant therein to be
presented in the Court in which the suit should have been instituted.
Considering the submissions made with reference to the statement of objects
and reasons of the Commercial Court, the Hon'ble Court opined that the very
purpose for which the Commercial Courts Act has been enacted would be
defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the Commercial
Court is entertained. While dismissing the appeal, the Hon'ble Court directed
that the Commercial Court shall return the plaint indicating a date for its
presentation before the Court having jurisdiction. In the present case, a plain
reading of the plaint would go to show that the suit transactions are
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
commercial in nature and even according to the respondents, the Commercial
Court has jurisdiction to try the same. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
supports the case of the petitioner herein.
43. Bank of Rajasthan Limited is a case, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court was dealing with a reference that arose out of an order noticing an
apparent conflict of views of two Judges Benches in United Bank of India,
Calcutta v. Abhijith Tea Company (P) Limited20, Indian Bank v. ABS
Marine Products (P) Limited 21 and State Bank of India v. Ranjan
Chemicals Ltd.22 A three member Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
examining the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Section 151 of C.P.C., inter alia held that
in the absence of any such power existing in Civil Court to entertain a suit filed
by borrower against Bank or Financial institution cannot be transferred to be
tried along with an application under the said Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
(2000) 7 SCC 357
(2006) 5 SCC 72
(2007) 1 SCC 97
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
while examining the power of the Civil Court held that when there is no power
of transfer in the Civil Court, the consent or absence of it is not something
which would lend such power to the Civil Court. However, in the present case,
the powers under Section 24 (5) seeking transfer of the suit by the High Court
were invoked. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
44. In Harshad Chiman Lal Modi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
dealing with a Review Petition. The applicant / appellant filed a suit for
Specific Performance of an agreement and after more than eight years of filing
of the written statement, an application was filed by the respondents /
defendants under Order VI Rule 7 of C.P.C., seeking an amendment in the
written statement by raising an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court.
The said application was allowed and after hearing the parties, the plaint was
ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the appropriate Court
and the said order was confirmed by the High Court as well as the Hon'ble
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Supreme Court. In the Review Petition, a direction was sought to take up the
suit from the stage at which, it stands transferred and to decide it
expeditiously. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts and circumstances,
opining that the provisions of Section 24 and / or Section 25 of the Code has
no application to the case on hand, agreed with the submission made by the
respondents that it is not a case of 'transfer' of a suit but of lack of jurisdiction
of the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the Review
Petition. This decision is not of much aid to the respondents as Section 24 (5)
of C.P.C., is invoked in the present case.
45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sinnamani's case dealing with the
provisions of the Trusts Act held that the original petition filed under the
provisions of the said Act cannot be allowed to be converted into a suit. The
Hon'ble Court upheld the decision of the High Court confirming the Order of
the District Court in allowing the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 of
C.P.C., rejecting the Trust O.P., and that the same could not be converted into
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
a Civil Suit. The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that the Trusts Act contains no
enabling the provision to convert the Original Petition into a suit. The fact
situation in the present case is different and the said decision is not
applicable.
46. Raja Soap Factory is a case in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that jurisdiction to try a suit, appeal or proceeding by a High Court under the
power reserved by Section 24 (1) (b) (i) of C.P.C., arises only if the suit,
appeal or proceeding is properly instituted in a Court subordinate to the High
Court. The said decision is prior to the amendment to the C.P.C., and insertion
of Section 24 (5), which is invoked in the present case.
47. In Neha Arun Jugadar v. Kumari Palak Diwan Ji's case (Transfer
Petition (Civil) No.182 of 2011), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealing with
transfer of a case pending at the District Judge (MACT Court, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.) to the competent Court at Pune, Maharashtra under Section 25
of C.P.C., was not inclined to allow the same. Whereas in the case on hand,
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., which empowers the High Court to transfer a suit or
proceeding from a Court which has no jurisdiction to try it, has been invoked.
48. In V.Rajeshwara Rao's case, the Hon'ble Division Bench of the
erstwhile High Court of Judicature of A.P., at Hyderabad, while dealing with
the provisions of the A.P.Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act, vis-à-vis Section 24
of C.P.C., held that the Special Court cannot invoke Section 24 of the C.P.C.,
although it has all the trappings of a Civil Court and that even the District
Court cannot withdraw a suit pending before any other subordinate court and
direct the transfer of the same to the Special Court since the jurisdiction of the
Special Court and District Court are mutually exclusive and that it cannot be
said to be the subordinate Court to the other. The proposition of Law laid
down by the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the opinion of this Court is not
applicable in as much as the transfer of suit from the Civil Court to the
Commercial Court, which are subordinate to the High Court was sought for in
the present case, in exercise of powers under Section 24 (5) of C.P.C.
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
49. The decision of the Division Bench of Telangana State High Court in
Bhojraj Srinivas referred to above is in respect of an appeal filed against the
order of the Trial Court allowing the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11
(d) of C.P.C. While upholding the order of the Trial Court, it was opined that it
is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction for the District Court to entertain the
suit and the Court which does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit, cannot
return the plaint, but has to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction. The said
decision is not applicable to the case on hand, as the petitioner in the present
case had invoked the powers of the High Court under Section 24 (5) of
C.P.C., and no distinction with regard to jurisdiction for transfer of suits in
exercise of power by it under the said provision of Law is made.
50. In Gulam Ismail & Others, the Division Bench of the erstwhile High
Court took a view that Section 24 can be invoked to transfer any suit or appeal
or other proceedings pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court
subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same and rejected the
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
petition to transfer the suit from Civil Court to Special Tribunal constituted
under the A.P.Land Grabbing (prohibition) Act holding that the Tribunal or
Special Court will not fall under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.
51. In A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation, a Division Bench of this
Court inter alia held that the issue relating to territorial jurisdiction of a Court
has to be decided by the Trial Court in the final adjudication of the suit, as a
plea has been taken in the Trial Court relating to the territorial jurisdiction and
dismissed the petition filed under Section 24 of C.P.C., seeking transfer of the
suit. The Hon'ble Division Bench, it would appear that, had no occasion to
examine the decision in J.Sita Rama Rao's case and the scope of Section
24(5) of C.PC., which provides for transfer of suits by the High Court, without
any qualification or restriction.
52. In Bank of India, CBD, Belapur Branch, the Hon'ble Division Bench of
the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with an issue
whether the Court can assume jurisdiction merely on the concession of the
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
parties and held that neither the consent nor waiver can cure the defect of
inherent lack of jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Division Bench directed the trial
Court to follow the procedure under Order VII Rule 10 of C.P.C.
53. In Kamadhenu Enterprises, Secunderabad v. Mrs.Zara Ahmad23, a
Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana, considering the
provisions of the Commercial Courts Act with reference to Section 9 etc., as
the specified value of the subject dispute is more than Rupees one crore in
view the specific provisions in Section 10 r/w Section 12 of the Commercial
Courts Act, opined that the application under Section 9 of the Act has to be
filed in a designated Commercial Court only and Civil Court has no jurisdiction
to deal with such applications. The Hon'ble Division Bench though left it open
to the Appellant therein to avail appropriate remedy, that may be available
under Commercial Courts Act, however, had not considered the remedy of
transfer of the cases in terms of the Section 24 (5) of C.P.C.
2023(1) ALT 739
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
54. The other decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents, in the opinion of this Court are of no much aid, more particularly
in the light of the decision of the High Court of Delhi in Namitha Guptha's
case, wherein the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, the applicability of
24 of C.P.C., which was not specifically excluded even after amendments to
the C.P.C., in its application to the commercial disputes except as mentioned
in the schedule of the Commercial Courts Act was dealt with. As noted
earlier, the said decision of the High Court dealing with the similar fact
situation like in the present case was carried in appeal and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court approved the reasoning of the Delhi High Court. Therefore,
the various contentions regarding lack of inherent jurisdiction are rejected.
Accordingly, the Issue No.3 is answered.
55. Reverting to the factual aspects of the case and as noted above, the
dispute is with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Court, Nellore in
entertaining the suit in respect of transactions which are commercial in nature,
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
while the Commercial Court at Vijayawada is having jurisdiction to try the
same. According to the written arguments filed on behalf of the respondents,
they do not owe anything to the petitioner, but the petitioner owes to the
respondents and the suit is filed with all false allegations, tampering of
records, without any supporting documents and by forging signatures of the
2nd respondent. All these aspects can as well be raised by the respondents in
the written statement taking a definite stand and contest the matter on merits,
on transfer of the suit as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to exercise its powers under Section 24 (5) of C.P.C., in the facts and
circumstances of the case and allow the Transfer Petition.
56. Accordingly, the suit O.S.No.59 of 2021 on the file of the Court of VIII
Additional District Judge, Nellore shall stand transferred from the said Court to
the Special Court for Trial of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam at
Vijayawada. On such transfer, the petitioner shall comply with the
requirements of the Commercial Courts Act with respect to the plaint, failing
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
which the respondents are at liberty to move an appropriate application for
rejection of the plaint, in accordance with Law.
57. In the result, the Transfer Petition is allowed and the Civil Revision
Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
Date: 12.08.2024
BLV
NJS,J
Tr.CMP_83 of 2022 &
CRP_2570 of 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
&
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2570 of 2023
Date:12.08.2024
BLV
