Full Judgment
OP(C).83/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943 OP(C) NO. 83 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: 1 JOY AGED 56 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, KUZHIPPILLIL HOUSE, ADIMALY KARA, ADIMALY P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2 ANI, AGED 27 YEARS D/O.JOY, KUZHIPPILLIL HOUSE, W/O. JIMMY, NJALIYAN HOUSE, KOTAMAM KARA, NILEESWARAM P.O., KALADI VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN RESPONDENT/S: WILSON AGED 60 YEARS S/O. PAULOSE, KUDIYIRICKAL @ VARIKKATT HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU KARA, MACHIPLAVU P.O., MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, -685561. BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).83/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
OP(C).No.83 of 2021 Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021
JUDGMENT
Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.251 of 2019 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Adimaly. The suit is filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent/landlord from evicting the petitioners/tenants from the plaint schedule building otherwise than in accordance with law. In the suit, the petitioners moved an
interlocutory application seeking transfer of the case to the Commercial Court on the premise that the dispute falls within the definition of ‘commercial dispute’ under Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act ('The Act', for short) and the specified value is above Rs.3 lakhs, the market value of the plaint schedule building being more than Rs.25 lakhs. The respondents filed objection contending that the relief sought is only for prohibitory injunction against illegal eviction and as such, the dispute is not a commercial dispute and further that the market value of the plaint schedule building cannot be the basis for determining the specified value under Section 12 of the Act. By Exhibit P5 order, the trial court rejected the prayer for transfer of the suit. Aggrieved, this original petition is filed.
2. Indisputably, plaint schedule property was leased out to the OP(C).83/21 3
petitioners for conducting business. As per the definition of 'commercial dispute' in Section 2(1)(c)(vii) ‘a commercial dispute’, the dispute should be one arising out of an agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce. The meaning of the words ‘agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce’ was considered by this Court
in C.R.P.No.146 of 2021. After detailed precedential survey, it was held
that the dispute should be with respect to agreements relating to immovable property 'being used' in trade or commerce and not, property intended 'to be used' for such purpose. It was also held that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, it is the value of the relief claimed and not, value of the property involved, that determines the jurisdiction. Finally it was held that having accepted the claim and numbered the suit, the plaint can only be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC, since the power to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court is vested with the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court under Section 15(5) of the Act. The legal position being as above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order.
In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- V.G.ARUN, JUDGE vgs OP(C).83/21 4 APPENDIX OF OP(C) 83/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ALONG WITH COUNTER CLAIM IN O.S.NO.251/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADIMALY. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.3/2020 IN EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT I.A.NO.3/2020 IN O.S.NO.251/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADIMALY. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.12.2020 IN I.A.NO.3/2020 IN O.S.NO.251/2019 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADIMALY.