Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 40 CS DJ 687/23
NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN AND ANR. Vs. ABHIPRA CAPITAL LTD.
18.09.2025
Present: Sh. Ashutosh Rana, Ld. counsel for plaintiffs.
Sh. Gautam Singhal, Ld. counsel for defendant through VC.
1. An application filed by plaintiffs u/s 15(4) of Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 r/w Section 151 CPC is pending disposal on record. Reply to this
application has been filed.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The brief glimps of factual background reveals that initially,
plaintiffs had filed the present suit as an ordinary suit praying for decree of
possession, arrears of rent and permanent injunction wherein defence of the
defendant was struck off by the court. The defendant in that suit had filed
an application u/o 7, Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground
that same was filed as an ordinary suit and not a commercial suit.
4. It appears that thereafter, plaintiffs realized their mistake and filed
transfer petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi invoking the law
laid down in decision dated 09.01.2024 in case titled as Namita Gupta
v. Suraj Holdings Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 143, seeking transfer of the
said suit before the court of Ld. DJ (Comm. Court) fully realizing that what
was sought to be transferred was commercial suit or at least the requisite
formalities required under the Commercial Courts Act were to be complied
with.
5. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 in TRP(C)
No.73/2024, titled as Nirmal Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. Abhipra Capital Ltd.
was pleased to pass the following order:-
“xxxxx
1. With the consent of the parties, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of, with the following directions:-
(i) Civil Suit No.687/2023 titled as Nirmal Kumar Jain &
Anr. Vs Abhipra Capital Ltd. stands transferred to the
Commercial Court, Rohini District, Delhi. Let the Court be
assigned by the District Judge.
(ii) Respondent, herein, is granted 15 days time to file the
written statement starting from the date of taking up of the
matter by the Commercial Court. The respondent shall also
be at liberty to raise all legal issues with respect to the
statutory compliances etc.
-- 1 of 2 --
xxxx”
6. The net effect of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble High
Court was that the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to revive the defence of
defendant as time was granted to it to file WS with the liberty of raising all
the legal points available to it in accordance with law.
7. Thereafter, the plaintiff admittedly complied with the requisite
formalities contemplated under Commercial Courts Act and thereafter,
moved the present application. The nature of the application is specific. It
nowhere seeks to amend or add any fact or even cause of action in the
already existing suit. The requisite formalities have been complied with by
the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in treating the present
suit as a commercial suit.
8. Ld. counsel for defendant has very vehemently argued that in the
garb of this application, the plainrtiff has sought amendment in the earlier
suit. I fail to understand the logic of this argument. No new fact is sought to
be added by the plaintiff. The application at the most, can be termed to be
formal in nature. It is not going to change the nature of the suit in any
manner, particularly in the teeth of the aforesaid order passed by the
Hon’ble Court.
9. In this view of the matter, the defendant is at liberty to file amended
WS, if any, within four weeks from today with advance copy to the other
side who may file replication thereto within two weeks thereafter.
10. List for issues/case management hearing on 19.11.2025.
(Vinod Yadav)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-02
North-West/Rohini Courts/18.09.2025
-- 2 of 2 --