Madras High Court
S.Sundar vs Mr.R.Desikan on 25 January, 2022
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
and
CMP No. 807 of 2022
S.Sundar ... Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs
1. Mr.R.Desikan
2. Mr.V.Viswanathan
3. Mr.Jayakar Abraham Henry
... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, against the order dated 29.11.2021 in unnumbered
O.S.(Commercial Division) S.R.No.15083/2021 passed by the Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
***
For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Raja Bappu
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the learned Principal
Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, returning the plaint requiring the plaintiff
to delete the defendants 1 & 2 from the party array and to file the suit as an
ordinary suit instead of a commercial suit.
2. Heard Mr. Ravi Raja Bappu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. In view of the fact that the plaint has been returned without being
numbered, notice to the respondents is deemed unnecessary.
3. Mr. Ravi Raja Bappu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would contend that the Court must look into the allegations in the
plaint and decide as to whether it is a commercial suit or not. According to
him, a loan transaction which done for a commercial purpose, namely,
production of a movie would be a commercial transaction and therefore, a
suit filed for recovery of money based on such loan transaction would be a
commercial suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
4. The learned counsel is supported by the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabai Enterprises Ltd., Vs. K.S.
Infraspace LLP and another reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 and the
Judgment of Bombay High Court in Bharat Muddanna Shetty Vs. Ahuja
Properties and Developers. The learned Principal Judge has taken a very
strict interpretation of the provision particularly Section 2(c)(i) of the
Commercial Courts Act to come to the conclusion that the suit transaction
will not qualify as a commercial transaction. I am unable to subscribe the
view of the learned Principal Judge. Once the plaintiff avers that advance
was made for commercial purpose and claims a decree for recovery of
money, the same would be a commercial transaction and any other view
cannot be justified.
5. As regards the second aspect, namely, to delete the defendants 1
and 2, I am of the considered opinion that the direction of the learned
Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, is in order. The prayer for
recovery of money is only made against the third defendant and the
defendants 1 and 2 have been roped in as persons, who have introduced the
third defendant to the plaintiff. They cannot be made liable. The lis being a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
money suit based on the promissory note only parties to the transaction can
be made parties to the suit. Therefore, the learned Principal Judge was
justified in directing the plaintiff to strike off the defendants 1 and 2 from the
party array.
6. This Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. The Plaintiff is
permitted to represent the suit as commercial suit after deleting the
defendants 1 and 2 from the party array and the learned Principal Judge is
directed to number the suit as commercial suit and dispose it of. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
25.01.2022
vsg
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To:
1. Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Vsg
CRP (NPD) No. 143 of 2022
and
CMP No. 807 of 2022
25.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
