Final Order 19

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CS DJ No.564/24 DL-00556
Madan Lal Arora vs Rajender Sharma Page 1 of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUMEET ANAND,
DISTRICT JUDGE-11, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
CS DJ No. 564/24
Madan Lal Arora Vs. Rajender Sharma
30.07.2026
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, this Court shall decide the
maintainability of the present suit before this Court in its present
form and that whether this suit is barred to be entertained before
this Court in terms of provisions of Commercial Courts Act,
2015 as the transaction between the parties, on the basis of
pleadings made reflects to be commercial in nature.
2. The plaintiff (Madan Lal Arora) has instituted the
present suit for specific performance/recovery of money and
injunction against the defendants.
3. As per the averments made in the plaint, it is the
case of the plaintiff that the defendants claimed to be owners of
property bearing no.C-1, Hardev Nagar, Jharoda, Mazra, Burari,
Delhi-110084 ad-measuring 200 sq. yards; and that the
defendants entered into a ‘Collaboration Agreement’ dated
19.12.2019 with the plaintiff for construction of the above
mentioned property.
4. The copy of the Collaboration Agreement dated
19.12.2019, which is the foundation of this case, based on which
the plaintiff is seeking reliefs, is on record.
5. At this point, it is expedient to mention that half
portion of the copy of the said Collaboration Agreement and the
-- 1 of 5 --
CS DJ No.564/24 DL-00556
Madan Lal Arora vs Rajender Sharma Page 2 of 5
documents annexed with it appear to be such that oil has spilled
on them. This Court has orally enquired from the Ahlmad of the
Court, and it is reported that these documents were received like
this only. This Court is prima facie satisfied that the oil has not
been spilled on the documents while the file was in the Court
because no other document on the file, or order-sheet, or file
cover has any trace of oil. Therefore, the oil had already spilled
on the documents before they were filed in the Court.
6. As per the essential terms of the ‘Collaboration
Agreement’, entered into between the parties, the plaintiff agreed
to construct 06 flats on 3 floors on the suit property in lieu of
which, he claims to have given monetary consideration to the
defendant, and in lieu of constructing the new flats, the plaintiff,
as per the terms of ‘Collaboration Agreement’, would have got
flats in the property.
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has already
invested a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninty Lacs only) in
construction of 07 flats in the suit property of 100 sq. yards, each,
apart from payment of cash consideration of Rs.5,00,000/- to the
defendants. However, due to spread of Corona Virus and lock
down the work and payments were suspended and hampered, but
the plaintiff is not shying away from completing the construction
work.
8. However, the defendants have failed to perform
their obligation under the ‘Collaboration Agreement’ by failing
to execute requisite title documents in favour of the portions
constructed in the suit property in the name of the plaintiff in
terms of the ‘Collaboration Agreement’. Hence, the present suit.
-- 2 of 5 --
CS DJ No.564/24 DL-00556
Madan Lal Arora vs Rajender Sharma Page 3 of 5
9. This case was at the stage of framing of issues when
the matter was listed for arguments on the point of
maintainability of the suit in terms of provisions of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015.
10. Despite three opportunities given to the plaintiff on
04.02.2026, 18.03.2026 and 30.05.2026, the plaintiff failed to
address any submissions on the point of maintainability.
Accordingly, on 30.05.2026, the right of the plaintiff to address
submissions on the point of maintainability of the suit was
closed.
11. The Ld. Counsel for defendants has also vehemently
argued that the present suit is a suit of commercial nature; and
that, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
present suit; therefore, the plaint of the present suit deserves to be
rejected.
12. This Court has perused the pleadings made by the
plaintiff in the present suit and has also perused and considered
the terms of ‘Collaboration Agreement’ dated 19.12.2019 as
executed between the parties.
13. On the basis of the same, this Court is of the view
that the present suit, in its present form is squarely covered by the
definition of ‘Commercial Dispute’ as provided under Section
2(c)(vi); which reads, that a commercial dispute means a dispute
arising out of construction and infrastructure contracts. The
explanation (a) also appended to Section 2 of the Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 provides that; ‘A commercial dispute shall not
cease to be commercial dispute merely because it involves action
for recovery of immovable property or for realization of money
-- 3 of 5 --
CS DJ No.564/24 DL-00556
Madan Lal Arora vs Rajender Sharma Page 4 of 5
out of immovable property given as security or involves any
other relief pertaining to immovable property.’
14. Moreover, para-16 of the ‘Collaboration
Agreement’ clearly reads that, “during the construction period
after all the major structure work is completed by the second
party the second party shall be entitled to sale, transfer, convey
and assign to any prospective buyer of the entire second floor
xxxxxxx and receive sale proceeds in respect thereof in his own
name xxxxxx.”
15. Accordingly, it is amply clear from the terms and
conditions of the ‘Collaboration Agreement’ that the construction
agreement entered into between the parties is of a commercial
nature, as in lieu of construction of flats, in the suit property, the
plaintiff was to receive a couple of flats that he would sell to
prospective buyers and retain the sale proceeds.
16. Lastly, the valuation of the present suit for specific
performance has been set by the plaintiff at Rs.90,00,000/-. In the
alternative, the plaintiff is seeking recovery of money for a sum
of Rs.90,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. Thus,
the specified value of the subject matter being above
Rs.3,00,000/- and the suit being of commercial nature, this Court
safely arrives at a conclusion that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction to entertain the present suit being a suit of
commercial nature having a commercial dispute.
17. Accordingly, on the basis of above, the present suit
is directed to be returned to the plaintiff after retaining a certified
copy of the same which shall be consigned to record room
alongwith this original order. And, alongwith the original suit
-- 4 of 5 --
CS DJ No.564/24 DL-00556
Madan Lal Arora vs Rajender Sharma Page 5 of 5
and documents returned to the plaintiff attested copy of this order
be also given to the plaintiff.
18. Ahlmad is directed to clearly endorse the date of
filing of the present suit and the date of return on the cover of the
suit returned.
19. Ordered accordingly.
20. Nothing else survives in this case.
21. File be consigned to record room after due
compliance as per rules.
Order be digitally signed and uploaded online.
Announced in the open court
on 30.07.2026
(This order contains 5 number of pages)
(SUMEET ANAND)
District Judge-11, Central District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi(s)
-- 5 of 5 --