[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rahul Choubey vs Hemant Batalia on 29 January, 2026
1 CR-767-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 29th OF JANUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 767 of 2025
DR. RAHUL CHOUBEY AND OTHERS
Versus
HEMANT BATALIA
Appearance:
Shri R. K. Sanghi - Senior Advocate with Shriyansh Mishra -
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Samarth Shrivastava - Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
By way of this petition, challenge is made to the order passed by the
trial Court dated 14.07.2025, whereby the trial Court has upheld the
objection of the petitioners-defendants as to non-maintainability of
regular suit in regular Court and has held that the suit is
maintainable before the Commercial Court constituted in terms of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
2015").
2. The challenge is primarily based on the ground that once the trial
Court came to conclusion that the dispute in question is a commercial
dispute of specified value, then the Court could not have transferred the
case and transfer under Section 15 of the Act of 2015 could only be made
of the pending cases which were pending as on the date of enforcement
2 CR-767-2025
of the Act of 2015, or date of establishment of Commercial Court. Where
the case has been erroneously instituted in a regular Court after
enforcement of the Act of 2015, there the only option open for the Court
is to return the plaint in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC which relates to
the power of the Court to return the plaint to be presented to the Court in
which the suit should have been instituted. However, the trial Court has
straightaway transferred the suit to the Commercial Court rather than
returning the suit to the plaintiff for proper presentation.
3. The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, on the other hand, has
heavily supported the impugned order on the ground that the suit would
lie only before the Commercial Court and, therefore, no error has been
committed by the trial Court in transferring the suit.
4. Upon hearing the rival parties and on perusal of the documents
placed on record, it is seen that as per Section 15 of the Commercial
Courts Act, the following has been provided:-
"15. Transfer of pending cases. --(1) All suits and applications,
including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified
Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has
been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.
(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a
commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil court
in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has
been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court:
Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment
has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the
Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred
either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).
(3) Where any suit or application, including an application under
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to
a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to
3 CR-767-2025
the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to
those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer.
(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case
may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such
transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines
or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy
and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance
[with Order XV-A] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908):
Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to
such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its
discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written
statement shall be filed.
(5) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in
the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-
section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court
may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw
such suit or application from the court before which it is pending
and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial
Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having
territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer
shall be final and binding."
5. The aforesaid power of transfer of the suit only relates to transfer of
pending cases which would mean the case should be pending prior to the
constitution of Commercial Court for the District. However, in the
present case, it is not disputed at all that Commercial Court had been
constituted having jurisdiction over District Jabalpur prior to filing of the
suit in question and, therefore, Section 15 of the Act of 2015 would not
apply in the present case.
6. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have returned the plaint in terms
of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC.
7. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial Court dated
14.07.2025 is modified to the extent that the plaint shall be returned in
original along with court fees to the plaintiff for being presented to the
4 CR-767-2025
Commercial Court of appropriate jurisdiction.
8. So far as the other ground raised regarding non-compliance of
Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 is concerned, the said provision
authorises suit to be filed directly in case any urgent interim relief is
sought. Therefore, the question that whether pre-institution mediation
settlement in the present case was required or not, is a question that has
to be considered by the Commercial Court after the suit is filed in the
competent Commercial Court by the plaintiff after getting the plaint
returned along with court fees from the trial Court. Therefore, this Court
refrains from expressing any opinion on applicability Section 12-A of
Act of 2015, leaving it open to be raised before the Commercial Court at
appropriate stage, if so required and advised.
9. In the above terms, the petition stands disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
