The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified a critical procedural boundary in commercial litigation: when a suit involving a commercial dispute of specified value is erroneously filed in a regular civil court after the establishment of a Commercial Court, the correct remedy is not transfer but return of the plaint. This ruling reinforces the statutory architecture of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and prevents procedural overreach that undermines jurisdictional clarity.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a commercial contract between Dr. Rahul Choubey and others as defendants and Hemant Batalia as plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a regular suit in the District Court at Jabalpur seeking recovery of dues. The defendants objected, contending that the matter fell within the definition of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and therefore could only be adjudicated by the Commercial Court established for Jabalpur district.
Procedural History
- Before the trial court: Defendants raised a preliminary objection on grounds of non-maintainability in a regular civil court.
- 14 July 2025: The trial court upheld the objection but instead of returning the plaint, it transferred the suit to the Commercial Court under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Civil Revision No. 767 of 2025: The defendants challenged this transfer order, arguing that Section 15 does not empower courts to transfer suits filed after the Commercial Court’s constitution.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the transfer order and directed the trial court to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Commercial Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 permits a regular civil court to transfer a suit filed after the establishment of the Commercial Court, or whether Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates the return of the plaint in such cases.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners argued that Section 15 of the Act applies only to suits pending as of the date the Commercial Court was constituted. Since the suit was instituted after the Commercial Court’s establishment, it was never a "pending case" within the meaning of Section 15. Therefore, the trial court had no authority to transfer it. They relied on the settled principle that jurisdictional defects in filing must be cured by return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC, not by transfer.
For the Respondent
The respondent contended that since the subject matter was a commercial dispute of specified value, the suit inherently belonged before the Commercial Court. He argued that transfer under Section 15 was a procedural convenience to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the legislature intended a broad interpretation to ensure efficiency. He cited general policy objectives of the Act to support the trial court’s action.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a textual and purposive interpretation of Section 15. It emphasized that the provision explicitly applies to suits "pending" at the time of the Commercial Court’s constitution. The phrase "pending in any civil court" refers to cases already on the court’s docket before the statutory mechanism came into force. A suit filed after the constitution of the Commercial Court is not "pending" in the legal sense contemplated by the statute.
"The power of transfer under Section 15 is confined to cases already in the pipeline when the Commercial Court was established. A suit filed thereafter is not a pending case; it is a misfiled one."
The Court further held that Order 7 Rule 10 CPC provides the exclusive remedy for suits filed in the wrong court. This rule is designed precisely for such jurisdictional missteps and ensures the plaintiff retains the benefit of the original filing date, including limitation. Transfer under Section 15 would deprive the plaintiff of this protection and create procedural uncertainty.
The Court also rejected the respondent’s policy-based argument, noting that statutory interpretation must yield to clear legislative language. The Act’s intent to streamline commercial litigation cannot override the procedural safeguards embedded in the CPC.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The High Court held that Order 7 Rule 10 CPC mandates the return of the plaint when a commercial suit is filed in a regular civil court after the establishment of a Commercial Court. The trial court’s transfer order was set aside, and the plaint was directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the competent Commercial Court.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Plaint Must Be Returned, Not Transferred
- Practitioners must file an application under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC when challenging jurisdiction in commercial suits filed in regular courts
- Transfer under Section 15 is not a substitute for return of plaint
- Courts must not conflate jurisdictional defects with procedural convenience
Limitation Period Preserved Through Return
- Return of plaint under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC preserves the original date of filing for limitation purposes
- This protects plaintiffs from losing rights due to technical misfiling
- Any argument that the suit is time-barred after return must be raised afresh before the Commercial Court
Section 12-A Remains Unaddressed Until Proper Filing
- Questions regarding pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A cannot be decided by the regular court
- Such issues must be raised before the Commercial Court after the plaint is properly presented
- Courts must avoid premature adjudication of procedural requirements outside their jurisdiction
