Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s rejection of an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC contending that the suit was a commercial dispute triable exclusively by the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The suit sought declarations, specific performance of an agreement dated 05.05.2007, alternative relief for refund, possession under a Development and Sale Agreement dated 29.03.2008 coupled with a General Power of Attorney, and permanent injunction.
The High Court held that the alternative relief was not merely for possession, but for enforcement of rights under the development agreement enabling construction and sale of a commercial/residential complex. Such a transaction fell within Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act relating to construction and infrastructure contracts. The Court further held that the expression “construction and infrastructure contracts” includes construction contracts independently and need not be read conjunctively.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed return of the plaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court, holding that filing before the wrong forum is not a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Headnote
The petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the Trial Court’s order rejecting an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The petitioner contended that the suit involved a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and therefore could be tried only by the Commercial Court. The suit sought declarations that earlier decree and subsequent transactions were not binding, specific performance of the agreement dated 05.05.2007, alternative relief for refund of earnest money, alternative relief for possession under the registered Development and Sale Agreement dated 29.03.2008 and General Power of Attorney dated 28.03.2008, and permanent injunction.
The High Court examined Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and held that the alternative relief was not a mere prayer for possession, but a claim seeking enforcement of rights arising out of the development and sale agreement enabling construction and sale of a commercial/residential complex. The Court further held that the expression “construction and infrastructure contracts” includes construction contracts independently and need not be read conjunctively. Accordingly, the dispute was held to be a commercial dispute triable by the Commercial Court.
The High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed return of the plaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court. The petition was therefore allowed in part.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed before the Senior Civil Judge is maintainable or if it should be tried exclusively by the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the Civil Revision Petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, and held that the dispute falls within the ambit of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court directed return of the plaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court, holding that filing before the wrong forum is not a ground for rejection of the plaint but for return of the plaint.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act
- 2015
- Application of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 (CPC)
- Definition of commercial dispute
- Jurisdiction of Commercial Court versus Civil Court
- Principles for rejection of plaint under CPC
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 48
Civil Revision Petition No.100101 of 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde
Sri. Abhishek Kalled for petitioner, Sri. Ashok Haranalli Senior Counsel for Sri. Amruth V. Jois for respondent 1, Sri. Mallikarjunaswamy B. Hiremath for respondents 4 and 5, Sri. Roshan Saheb Chabbi for respondents 2, 3, 6 to 10, Smt. Kavita S. Jadhav for respondent 11
Malappa S/o. Maritammappa Amarshetty
M/s. Allied Builders, Jakkavva W/o. Basavaneppa Kampli, Savakka W/o. Channabasappa Sullad, Dyamavva W/o. Basavanneppa Satyappanavar, Neelavva W/o. Basappa Benni, Seema W/o. Sanjeev Pujar, Sanjeev S/o. Hanumanthappa Pujar, Shilpa D/o. Channabasappa Sullad, Siddaramappa S/o. Channabasappa Sullad, Basavaraj S/o. Channabasappa Sullad, Arun S/o. Laxmanrao Neelopant
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision petition challenging the Trial Court's order on maintainability of a suit
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the Trial Court's order and reject the plaint, arguing the suit should be tried by the Commercial Court
Filing Reason
Petitioner contended the suit involved a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, making it non-maintainable before the Senior Civil Judge
Previous Decisions
Trial Court rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC, holding the suit was maintainable
Issues
Whether the suit filed before the Senior Civil Judge is maintainable or if it falls under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued the suit involved a development and sale agreement constituting a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act
Respondents contended the dispute did not attract the Act's provisions, as the primary relief was for specific performance of a sale agreement, not enforcement of the development agreement
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that where the suit includes relief seeking possession and enforcement of rights under a registered Development and Sale Agreement enabling construction and sale of a commercial/residential complex, the dispute falls within Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as a construction contract constituting a commercial dispute. The expression ‘construction and infrastructure contracts’ is to be read disjunctively and includes construction contracts independently. Filing of such suit before an ordinary Civil Court does not warrant rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; instead, the plaint must be returned for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner contended that the suit filed before the Senior Civil Judge was not maintainable and that only the Commercial Court constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 had jurisdiction to try the suit.
The Trial Court held that the plaintiff primarily sought specific performance of the agreement dated 05.05.2007 and that the alternative relief under the development agreement was only a relief for possession of the suit schedule property.
The High Court considered the rival contentions and examined whether the alternative relief arising out of the Development and Sale Agreement dated 29.03.2008 constituted a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC before the Trial Court seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
The Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 22.09.2025 in I.A. No. IV in O.S. No. 319/2025.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Karnataka.
The High Court heard the matter on 12.12.2025, reserved the matter for orders, and pronounced judgment on 19.01.2026.
The High Court partly allowed the petition, set aside the Trial Court’s order, and directed return of the plaint for presentation before the jurisdictional Commercial Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order VII Rule 11(d)
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 2(1)(c)
