Madras High Court Allows Revision Against Registration of Suit as Commercial Dispute Under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — Suit for Declaration of Sale Deeds as Void Not a Commercial Dispute. The court held that a suit seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void does not fall within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and directed return of plaint.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 41
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a civil revision petition filed by the petitioners (defendants in the suit) challenging the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur, registering the suit as a commercial suit. The respondents 1 and 2 (plaintiffs) had filed a suit seeking declaration that various sale deeds executed by them in favour of the defendants were null and void and for consequential permanent injunction. The suit was originally filed as an ordinary suit, but the trial court registered it as a commercial suit. The petitioners entered appearance and later filed an application (I.A.No.4 of 2023) seeking conversion of the suit from commercial to ordinary original suit, which was dismissed. The petitioners then filed a revision before the High Court in C.R.P.No.1857 of 2024, which was dismissed on the technical ground that they had not challenged the earlier order dated 24.03.2022 registering the suit as a commercial suit. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present revision challenging that order. The legal issue was whether the suit falls within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The petitioners argued that the prayer for declaration of sale deeds as void does not fit into the definition of commercial disputes. The respondents contended that the petitioners had participated in proceedings and their earlier application for conversion was dismissed, which was confirmed by the High Court, so they cannot now challenge the registration order. The court examined Section 2(1)(c) and found that the dispute does not arise out of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders as specified in the provision. The court held that the trial court erred in registering the suit as a commercial suit and allowed the revision petition, setting aside the order dated 24.03.2022 and directing the return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court.

Headnote

A) Commercial Law - Commercial Dispute Definition - Section 2(1)(c) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Suit for Declaration of Sale Deeds as Void - The suit sought declaration that various sale deeds executed by plaintiffs in favour of defendants were null and void and for consequential permanent injunction. The court held that such a dispute does not arise out of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders as specified in Section 2(1)(c) and therefore cannot be treated as a commercial dispute. The trial court's order registering the suit as a commercial suit was set aside. (Paras 2-5)

B) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Revision - Challenge to Registration Order - The petitioners had earlier filed an application to convert the suit from commercial to ordinary suit, which was dismissed, and the revision against that dismissal was dismissed on technical ground. However, the present revision challenging the original registration order was held maintainable as the earlier dismissal did not bar the challenge to the initial order. (Paras 2-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a suit seeking declaration that sale deeds are null and void and for consequential injunction falls within the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and whether the trial court erred in registering it as a commercial suit.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The docket order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur in O.S.(S.R.).No.6398 of 2022, subsequently numbered as O.S.No.153 of 2022, is set aside. The plaint in O.S.No.153 of 2022 shall be returned to be presented before the court in which the suit should have been initiated. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Commercial dispute definition
  • Section 2(1)(c) Commercial Courts Act 2015
  • Suit for declaration of sale deeds as void not a commercial dispute
  • Challenge to registration order maintainable despite earlier dismissal of conversion application
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (02) 315

C.R.P.No.3016 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.16218 of 2024

2026-02-10

S.SOUNTHAR

2026:MHC:594

Mr.Ralph V.Manohar (for petitioners), Mr.R.Munuswamy (for R1 and R2)

M/s.B.M.B. Foundations Private Limited, M/s. B.M.B. Foundations Private Limitted, Arvind Bagrecha

A.Mohanasundaram, M.Bhuvaneswari, M/s.Team Housing and Developers, V.Rameshvasan

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil revision petition challenging the order of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur registering a suit as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners (defendants) sought to set aside the docket order dated 24.03.2022 registering the suit as a commercial suit and to return the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court.

Filing Reason

The trial court registered the suit as a commercial suit despite the suit seeking declaration of sale deeds as null and void, which does not fall within the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Previous Decisions

The petitioners had earlier filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 seeking conversion of the suit from commercial to ordinary suit, which was dismissed. The revision against that dismissal (C.R.P.No.1857 of 2024) was dismissed on technical ground that the petitioners failed to challenge the original order dated 24.03.2022.

Issues

Whether the suit seeking declaration that sale deeds are null and void and for consequential injunction is a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Whether the petitioners are entitled to challenge the order dated 24.03.2022 registering the suit as a commercial suit despite the earlier dismissal of their conversion application and the revision against it.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the prayer in the plaint does not fit into the definition of 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as it does not arise out of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders. Respondents argued that the petitioners participated in proceedings for several months, filed a belated application for conversion which was dismissed, and the order was confirmed by this Court, so they cannot now challenge the registration order.

Ratio Decidendi

A suit seeking declaration that sale deeds are null and void and for consequential injunction does not arise out of ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders as specified in Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore cannot be treated as a commercial dispute. The trial court erred in registering such a suit as a commercial suit.

Judgment Excerpts

Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 reads as follows:- “2.(1)(c) “commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of- (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to...” The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners by taking this Court to the definition of the expression 'Commercial Dispute' which was defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 submits that the prayer sought for in the plaint will not fit into to the definition of commercial disputes.

Procedural History

The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit (O.S.(S.R.).No.6398 of 2022) seeking declaration that sale deeds are null and void and for injunction. The trial court registered it as a commercial suit on 24.03.2022. The suit was subsequently numbered as O.S.No.153 of 2022. The petitioners (defendants) entered appearance and filed I.A.No.4 of 2023 seeking conversion to ordinary suit, which was dismissed. The petitioners filed C.R.P.No.1857 of 2024 against that dismissal, which was dismissed on technical ground. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present C.R.P.No.3016 of 2024 challenging the original order dated 24.03.2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015: Section 2(1)(c)
  • Constitution of India: Article 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Considers Writ Petition Challenging Appointment of Special Public Prosecutor Under Section 24(8) of CrPC — Petitioner Alleges Likelihood of Bias as Appointee Had Previously Represented Complainant in Bail Proceedings
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Clarifies Referee Bench's Jurisdiction in Consumer Protection Act Reference. Referee Bench Cannot Decide Appeal Itself and Must Answer Referred Questions Before Returning Matter to Referring Bench Under Section 58(3), Consumer Protectio...