Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SUMER SINGH & ANR … Appellants
Advocate who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr Anand Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
1. The present appeal is filed against the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court. The present appellants who were defendant nos. 7&8 had contended before the learned Single Judge that the suit was a commercial dispute falling under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act,
2015. This contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge and as such the suit was transferred to the District Court in view of the valuation of the suit being less than Rs. 2 Crore. 2017:DHC:321-DB
2. The learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that the dispute arises out of sale deeds and that sale deeds are agreements. He submits that the property in question is used for trade and commerce.
3. The appellants‟ contention cannot be accepted, particularly, in view of our decision in the case of Hindpal Singh Jabbal & Ors v. Jasbir Singh & Ors: FAO(OS) 50/2016 decided on 22.08.2016 where the very issue was raised. In that case one of the contentions was that sale deeds were covered under the definition of commercial dispute and particularly under Section 2(1)(c)(vii). The said provision stipulates that a commercial dispute means, inter alia, a dispute arising out of an agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade and commerce. It is because of this that the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to bring a „sale deed‟ within the expression „agreement‟ relating to immovable property. This aspect has been considered by us in the aforesaid decision in Hindpal Singh Jabbal & Ors (supra) in the following manner:-
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
16. We may also notice that the definition of commercial dispute in Section 2(1)(c) indicates 21 different types of transactions all of which pertain to contracts/agreements of commercial transactions and none of which relate to any conveyance of immovable property. Therefore, in our view the subject matter of the present suit does not fall within the ambit of “commercial dispute” as specified in Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. That being the case, Commercial Courts Act would not apply and amendment brought to the Section 5(2) of Delhi High Court Act, 1966 whereby the pecuniary jurisdiction has been raised to in excess of rupees two crores would clearly apply.”
4. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. A sale deed does not fall within the expression „agreement relating to immovable property‟. That being the case, the dispute involved in the present matter would not qualify as a commercial dispute within the meaning of 2(1)(c)(vii) of the said Act.
5. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J JANUARY 17, 2017 kb