Delhi High Court
Vakil Chand vs Saraswati Sahitya Mandir And ... on 25 May, 2023
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25.05.2023
+ CM(M) 133/2023
VAKIL CHAND ..... Petitioner
versus
SARASWATI SAHITYA MANDIR AND OTHERS
..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Ms. Pepakayala Geetanjali, Advocate
for R-6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J. (ORAL)
[ The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode ]
CM APPL. 28584/2023 (for early hearing)
1. This is an application seeking early hearing of the present
petition.
2. For the reasosn stated therein, the application seeking early
hearing is allowed. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up
for consideration.
3. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 133/2023
4. Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 11.01.2023 passed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:31.05.2023
16:45:21
in Civ. DJ No. 897/2019 titled as "Vakil Chand vs. Saraswati Sahitya
Mandir And Others" whereby an application under Section 15(2) of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has been rejected.
5. Mr. Praveen Suri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at
the outset invites attention of this Court to the definition of "commercial
disputes" under Section 2 (1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to
submit that, if one were to go by the explaination to sub-Section (1) of
Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, the words employed in Clause
(a) of sub-Section (1) to Section 2 of the Act which states "any other
relief pertaining to the immovable property" would cover the case of the
petitioner.
6. According to Mr. Suri, though there is no contract between the
parties to the dispute, which could be called in the nature of a
commercial agreement, however, the fact that the petitioner has been
using the subject suit property, uninterruptedly for the past many
decades for commercial trade, would itself fall within Clause (a) to sub-
Section (1) to Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act and, therefore,
the transfer of the suit from the ordinary Civil Court to the designated
Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act ought to have been
allowed by the learned Trial Court.
7. Mr. Suri, learned counsel also submits that in the present case, the
petitioner has asserted itself to be an owner by way of adverse
possession and has been carrying out commercial trade for the last many
decades from the suit premises. That itself, per se, even without
referring to the explanation under the Commercial Courts Act would,
keeping in view the fact that the property itself is being used for a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:31.05.2023
16:45:21
commercial purpose, bring the suit within the ambit of the Commercial
Courts Act.
8. Learned counsel submits that in that view of the matter, the
learned Trial Court committed a grave illegality and a procedural
irregularity by overlooking the express provisions of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
9. Learned counsel also relies upont he judgment of the Single
Bench in T.V. Today Network Limited vs. News Laundry Media
Private Limited And Others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2233 of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as also the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal And Others vs. Manjit Kaur
And Others reported in (2019) 8 SCC 729. Relying on the judgment of
the Supreme Court, learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court has
recognized the right of the person asserting right over the subject suit
property by way of adverse possession as an independent right to
establish the same and claim the ownership rights over the subject suit
property.
10. So far as the judgment of the Single Bench is concerned, learned
counsel submits that the issue involved therein was defamation in
respect of a programme being carried out by the defendants, which as
per the Co-ordinate Bench was infringment of the rights of the said
plaintiff therein.
Learned counsel, on that basis, submits that the suit also entails
the protection of intellectual property rights of the petitioner/ plaintiff,
which necessarily makes the suit to be of a "commercial nature", as
provided by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Learned counsel
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:31.05.2023
16:45:21
submits, in furtherance of his submission, that since the suits concerning
the disputes pertaining to intellectual property rights fall within
Commercial Courts Act, the learned Trial Court ought to transfer his
suit to concerned commercial court.
11. On the basis of the aforesaid judgments as also the definition of
the commercial disputes, as submitted above, learned counsel submits
that the impugned order may be interfered with.
12. This Court has considered the submissions made by Mr. Suri,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
13. So far as the definition of a "commercial dispute" as contained in
the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is concerned, upon a plain reading of
the explanation in Clause (a) to sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the
Commercial Courts Act, it is clear that the same cannot be read de hors
the meaning as ascribed to the word "commercial dispute" in the
preceding sub-clauses to Clause (c).
14. From the plain reading of the meaning given to "commercial
dispute" from sub-Clause (i) to sub-Clause (xxii) of sub-Section (1) to
Section 2 of the Commercial Courts Act, makes it apparently clear that
the nature of transaction between the parties to the lis, necessarily has to
have a color of commercial nature, if not completely a commercial
dispute between the parties as ascribed in Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. So far as the present case is concerned, it is not disputed that
between the parties there is no such transaction at all. It has been
submitted by Mr. Suri that so far as respondent No.1 is concerned,
respondent No.1 is asserting ownership on the basis of sale documents
which are yet to be proved in accordance with law before the learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:31.05.2023
16:45:21
Trial Court.
16. If one were to look at the assertion made by both parties, and
restricting right now only to respondent No.1, the dispute apparently
appears to be between the parties who are asserting ownership rights by
virtue of title deeds, in contrast to the petitioner, who is asserting his
right as an owner by virtue of adverse possession. It is clear that there is
no element of commercial transaction insofar as the inter se dispute is
concerned.
17. The other aspect of the matter as submitted by Mr. Suri, so far as
respondent No.6 is concerned, is that it is an Authority under the State
and covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr.
Suri, the respondent No.6 is also asserting its ownership rights by virtue
of the vesting of the property, prior in time. Mr. Suri also submits that
the respondent No.6 has issued notices against the petitioner under the
provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971. If one were to consider the
submissions made by Mr. Suri insofar as respondent No.6 too is
concerned, apparently and ex facie, there is no element of commercial
dispute or any transaction which has any commercial color to it at all.
18. So far as the judgments of the Supreme Court and the learned
Single Bench of this Court is concerned, none of them are applicable to
the facts of this case.
19. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is misconceived and is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
20. The next date already fixed i.e., 24.08.2023 stands cancelled.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
MAY 25, 2023/nd
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:31.05.2023
16:45:21
