Delhi District Court
Sakshi Gupta vs Vipin Gupta on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MANOJ KUMAR-I: DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-5, CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI,
DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-014486-2023
CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023
In the matter of:
Sakshi Gupta
W/o late Shri Vijay Gupta
Address: D-288, Rohini Sector-14,
Prashant Vihar,
North-West Delhi-110085.
Also at: 2322, Gali Chhoti Pahadwali,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 ... Plaintiff
VERSUS
Vipin Gupta
Address: G. Lami India,
933, Chawri Bazar,
Delhi-110006.
Also at: D-91, Preet Vihar,
Delhi-110092 ... Defendant
Date of Institution : 11.10.2023
Date of Reserving judgment : 12.8.2025
Date of pronouncement : 18.8.2025
For Plaintiff : Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate
For Defendant : Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate
CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 1 of 23
JUDGMENT :
This is a suit for for declaration and grant of permanent and mandatory injunction along with damage in addition to injunction under section 34 read with sections 37, 39 and 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 instituted by plaintiff against defendant. The plaint in the suit was presented through e-filing on 10.10.2023, and physically on 17.10.2023. On 08.5.2024 the plaint was amended followed by filing of amended written statement by the defendant.
2. Facts, as per the plaintiff's version, are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property; that in or around the year 2011, Suresh Kumar Jain (erstwhile owner of the suit property) approached late Vijay Gupta to sell the suit property which was available for sale; that based upon the assurances and after being lured by the said suit property, late Vijay Gupta agreed to purchase the same in favour of the plaintiff for total sale consideration of Five Lakh Ninety Five Thousand rupees; that accordingly, a sale deed was registered in favour of the plaintiff by Suresh Kumar Jain dated 14.6.2011; that Suresh Kumar Jain assured the plaintiff that the suit property was free from all sorts of mortgages, alienation and encumbrances, therefore, on the basis of the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff, the plaintiff became a lawful owner of the suit property and all rights of ownership and possession in respect of the same had devolved upon the plaintiff; that Suresh Kumar Jain had delivered the physical and vacant possession of CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 2 of 23 the suit property to the plaintiff; that the plaintiff abided by the payment plan as agreed with Suresh Kumar Jain and obediently paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.5,95,000/-; that the plaintiff with the help of her husband and relatives gathered all the hard earned money in order to pay the entire sale consideration; that the plaintiff is involved in the business of trading in files and other stationery items under the name and style of "Florid" having registered proprietorship firm name of "Priya G Sales Corporation"; that the business of the plaintiff includes sourcing best products for fulfilling the desired orders in order to ensure smooth functioning of different agencies, schools and corporations; that the defendant is also involved in the similar line of business; that the defendant is having significant influential powers in the market of Chawri Bazar which is not being deployed in the good cause, and instead it is being used to harass the people in the market concerned; that entire business operations were managed and handled by late Vijay Gupta (the husband of Plaintiff); that late Vijay Gupta owned several properties in his own name and in the name of the plaintiff which were entirely managed and handled by him and the suit property being one of them; that late Vijay Gupta passed away on 23.9.2016, and the entire burden to maintain and control the business came on the plaintiff; that although, the Plaintiff after facing all the difficulties, started managing the entire operations of business; that transition of business from late Vijay Gupta to the plaintiff took a lot of time; that since the plaintiff newly started handling the business operations and also started CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 3 of 23 managing all the properties which were owned and controlled by late Vijay Gupta, it was difficult to gather all the possible registered sale deeds / documents; that though, the plaintiff knew about each and every property which was being owned by late Vijay Gupta; that while the plaintiff was gathering the entire set of registered sale deeds documents, unfortunately, she was unable to find the sale deed for the suit property; that despite the best efforts to find the sale deed, she was met with disappointment, as the sale deed seemed to have gone missing; that the loss of the sale deed created a significant obstacle for the plaintiff, making it difficult for her to claim the ownership of the suit property; that despite the setback, she continued to pursue other avenues to establish her ownership in the suit property; that since the sale deed of the suit property was missing, the plaintiff approached the registrar authority in an effort to obtain the certified copy of the sale deed; that the registrar authority was able to provide her with the necessary information on the procedures and requirements for obtaining a certified copy of the sale deed; that the plaintiff quickly proceeded with the requisite formalities, providing all the necessary documentation and information; that following the necessary procedures and providing all required documentation, the plaintiff was successful in receiving the certified copy of the sale deed of the suit property; that when the plaintiff visited the suit property to check on it, she was shocked and dismayed to discover that an unknown person was in the possession of the suit property; that this was a perplexing and troubling situation as CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 4 of 23 she had believed she was the rightful owner; that the plaintiff made an attempt to speak with the person who was in the possession of the suit property who informed the plaintiff that he had taken the suit property on rent from the defendant; that this information came as a surprise to the plaintiff who had not been aware of any rental agreement or arrangement for the suit property; that when the plaintiff approached the defendant to get the details about the situation, the defendant had stated that the original documents of the suit property were misappropriated / stolen by him at the time of his visit to attend the death ceremonies; that the defendant had even informed that the possession of the suit property was taken by breaking through the lock and replacing it with his own set of locks; that the plaintiff for her right and entitlement, requested the defendant to return the original sale deed and vacate the suit property, but the defendant straightaway refused to comply with her request, and instead continued to let out the suit property on rent for his own need and greed; that the plaintiff time and again requested the defendant to return the original sale deed and vacate the possession, but the defendant had not pave (sic) any heal (sic) to same as the defendant was just delaying by giving vague excuses to the plaintiff and the request always fell on deaf years (sic); that on continuous request by the plaintiff, the defendant informed the plaintiff that the defendant will return the sale deed of the suit property and vacate the possession only if a hefty amount of money will be paid to the defendant; that the defendant even threatened and blackmailed that the Defendant, will sell the suit property CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 5 of 23 illegally if his demands are not met; that the plaintiff realised that first of all the defendant had misappropriated/stolen the sale deed of the suit property from the plaintiff's house at the time of attending the death ceremonies of late Vijay Gupta, and then illegally taken the possession of the suit property; that the defendant have earned hefty amounts by letting out the suit property on rent, and now threatening the plaintiff with the mala fide intentions to extort money from her; that though the plaintiff was in a mood to get the matter settled amicably and further the plaintiff did not want to indulge in any litigation, therefore, to avoid that possibility, she got served a legal notice through courier and WhatsApp; that the legal notice delivered through courier got returned since the defendant refused to accept the same; that the legal notice was served through WhatsApp of the counsel of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff even after having the suit property in Chawri Bazar, has to take a shop on rent to carry on her business; that the plaintiff is paying a monthly rental of Rs.15,000/- even after having her own premises; that on the other side, the defendant is enjoying the suit property by letting out the same on rental basis. that following are the particulars with regard to charging rate of interest against the Defendants in the present suit: (a) total amount of rent paid from 01.04.2016 to 30.09.2023-Rs.6,30,000/-, (b) the rate at which interest is claimed: 12% per annum, (c) the date from which it is claimed: 30.04.2016, (d) the date to which it is claimed:
30.09.2023, (e) the total amount of interest claimed to the date of calculation: Rs.75,600/-; that the defendant is also liable to pay a sum of CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 6 of 23 Rs.6,30,000/- along with an amount of Rs.75,600/- in the form of damages caused to the plaintiff; that in terms of provisions of Order XI Rule 3 of amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the plaintiff states and declares on oath that all the documents in the power, possession, control, custody of the Plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by her have been disclosed and the copies thereof annexed with the plaint, all the Plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody; that the plaintiff approached the Delhi Legal Services Authority for mediation but the defendant did not join the proceedings before the said Authority leading upto the institution of the suit; that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit as the Suit Premises is located in Central Delhi, and the plaintiff and the defendant are carrying on their business and working of gains within the jurisdiction of this court as prescribed under Section 16-20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The relief clause in the plaint reads as follows:
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:
1. Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant in respect of sale deed dated 14 June 2011executed in favour of Plaintiff having address Property No. 2358, Chatta Shahji, Chippi Wara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006.
2. Pass a decree of possession in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant with respect to the property bearing no.2358, Chatta Shahji, Chippi Wara, Chawari Bazar, Delhi-110006; described in the site plan forming part of the Sale Deed dated 14.06.2011 and further declare the Plaintiff to the owner of the suit property on the basis of the registered sale deed in her favour.
3. Pass an order in nature of permanent or mandatory or prohibitory injunction thereof restraining / prohibiting the Defendant from creating CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 7 of 23 any third party interest.
4. Pass an order in nature of permanent or mandatory or prohibitory injunction thereof restraining / prohibiting the Defendant from fastening the Suit Premises with his own set of locks.
5. Pass an order in nature of permanent or mandatory or prohibitory injunction thereof restraining prohibiting the Defendant from leasing out the Suit Premises on rental basis.
6. Pass an order in nature of permanent or mandatory or prohibitory injunction thereof restraining / prohibiting Defendant from obstructing the Plaintiff from entering into Premises.
7. Pass an order in nature of permanent or mandatory or prohibitory injunction thereof restraining / prohibiting the Defendant from illegally selling/disposing off Suit Premises.
8. Pass an order in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant directing the Defendant to pay an amount of Rs. 6, 30, 000/-along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 30 April 2016 till the date of realization of present suit.
9. Award the cost of the suit in favour of Plaintiff.
10. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. The suit is contested by the defendant by way of a written statement of defence wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that plaint is brevet of material facts and therefore is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed the necessary vital facts which are necessary for proper adjudication of the present case; that the present suit is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation as present suit is filed after the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years; that the present suit is filed after a period of 12 years 26 days which is barred by limitation as per the Limitation act, 1963; that the amendment was sought by the plaintiff only when the defendant raised the objection in their written statement; that even in the title/Subject of the plaint the CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 8 of 23 plaintiff has not sought possession of the suit property, and this is only filed when the written statement was filed by the defendant; that the plaintiff has suppressed the necessary and vital facts of the case which the defendant would like to bring on record that the plaintiff and defendants are family members (the plaintiff husband i.e. Vijay Gupta defendant mother i.e. Usha Gupta is real sisters); that in year 2010 husband of the plaintiff along with the plaintiff visited mother of the defendant place and sought friendly loan for an amount of Rs.11,00,000/- for starting new business as they suffered huge losses in their earlier business which was dye business (colouring of clothes), manufacturing of disposable glasses etc; that owing to the close proximity of relationship that they were son and daughter-in-law, the mother of the defendant advanced a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband; that later in 2011 the defendant came to know that the plaintiff instead of returning the loan amount purchased a property bearing No. 2358, Chatta Shahji, Chippi Wara Chawri Bazar Delhi-110006; that the defendant pressurised the husband of the plaintiff to return the loan amount; that the plaintiff and her husband expressed their unavailability to pay back the loan amount made an offer that they would transfer the property in the defendant mothers name in discharge of part liability; that thereafter husband of the plaintiff along with the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit property along with original sale deed dated 14.6.2011 executed between Suresh Jain and Sakshi Gupta in the month of June 2011 and said he would do the legal CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 9 of 23 formalities after some time as he was occupied in some important work; that when the defendant started to chase the plaintiff for preparing the property documents and getting it registered the plaintiff avoided it on one pretext or another; that after much follow up and chasing, both, the plaintiff and her husband, agreed for the same, and accordingly, the defendant purchased the stamp paper and made demand draft to be executed at the time of the registration of the property; that after all the necessary paper were made for registration of the property the defendant informed the husband of plaintiff as well as the plaintiff to fix a time before the registrar for registration of the aforesaid property, but both the husband of the plaintiff along with the plaintiff sought time on one pretext to another; that later on the father of the defendant suffered paralysed attack so the defendant remained busy in taking care of his ailing father and looking after his business activities as both father and the defendant had separate business; that in the meantime, whenever the defendant met the husband of the plaintiff he insisted for registration of the documents, the husband of the plaintiff stated that he had already given the possession of the property to the defendant and he was settled into the peaceful possession of the property so it hardly matters, but time again and again when the defendant insisted for registration, the husband of the plaintiff sought time giving some excuses one pretext to another; that the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground that once the plaintiff has set off his part friendly loan amount by handing over the possession and handing over the original sale deed and signed the sale deed then on CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 10 of 23 what ground the plaintiff has filed the present suit claiming possession of the aforesaid property by suppressing the true facts of the case; that the plaintiff has misled the court by filing this false and frivolous petition on sketchy ground by not disclosing the full facts of the case but has cleverly drafted the suit by stating that the plaintiff had possession of the suit till 2016, but same is not true, the plaintiff has handed over the possession of the aforesaid property in month of June 2011 itself; that the plaintiff has made bogus claim that the defendant has misappropriated/stolen the sale deed of the suit property from the plaintiff's house at the time of attending the death ceremonies of late Vijay Gupta (plaintiff husband); that despite knowing that the defendant has misappropriated/stolen the sale deed of the property on 23.9.2016 the plaintiff did not file a police complaint nor has made any communication to the defendant to enquire about the same; that the present suit in not maintainable under the provisions of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as it does not meet the requirements as laid down by Commercials Courts Act, 2015, namely, the plaintiff has not signed on every page of the plaint, the statement of truth is not filed as per the schedule prescribed under the Act, and the list of documents is not filed as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; that the suit for declaration and possession are not covered under the Commercials Court Act, 2015; that the plaintiff in their pleadings have paid court fees on the market value of the property i.e. Rs.11,00,000/- but has cleverly involved the angle of section 2 (xxii); that the plaintiff cannot ride on CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 11 of 23 two boats while filing the suit as interpreting the suit under the provisions of commercial suit by reading the section in bit and pieces; that for a suit to fall under the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, section has to be read in full not in bits and pieces; that the entire suit has been filed on concealment of the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property, but no document whatsoever has been filed by the plaintiff to support her case; that all the details have been deliberately suppressed in the petition just to harass the defendant by filing this bogus petition; that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff has filed the prescribed suit after the period of limitation and has not filed any documents to show that the plaintiff were in possession of the property till 2016 until husband of the plaintiff expired. In the reply on merits, the averments made by the plaintiff in support of her claim are disputed and denied and it is stated that the suit be dismissed.
4. The plaintiff filed a replication to the written statement of the defendant wherein the defence taken by the defendant are traversed and the averments made in the plaint are reiterated.
5. On 13.8.2024, on the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed, out of which issue No. 1 was corrected on 09.5.2025. The issues read as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration that she is owner of suit property no. 2358, Chatta Shahji, Chippi Wara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi on the strength of sale deed CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 12 of 23 dated 14.6.2011 executed in her favour? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession of the suit property? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction directing the defendant not to create any third party interest in the suit property? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs.6,30,000/-
from the defendant as damages along with interest @ 12%? OPP
5. Whether the suit is barred by period of limitation? OPP and OPD
6. Relief.
6. In support of her claim, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and during her examination-in-chief tendered her affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with documents Ex.PW1/1 {certified copy of sale deed dated 13.5.2016 (registered on 14.6.2011)}, Ex.PW1/2 (copy of Aadhaar Card), Ex.PW1/3 (copy of bank statement of the plaintiff), Ex.PW1/4 (copy of bank statement of late Vijay Gupta), Ex.PW1/5 (copy of bank statement of late Ram Kanwar Gupta), Ex.PW1/6 (copy of the death certificate of Vijay Gupta), Ex.PW1/7 (copy of legal notice), Ex.PW1/8 (postal receipt), Ex.PW1/9 (envelope), Ex.PW1/10 (non-starter report) and Mark P-1 (copy of chat). PW1 Sakshi Gupta was cross-examined by counsel for the defendant, and thereafter evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed.
CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 13 of 237. In his defence, the defendant got examined himself as DW1 and during his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit Ex.DW1/A along with documents Ex.DW1/1 {copy of sale deed dated 13.5.2016 (registered on 14.6.2011)}, Ex.DW1/2 (copy of document purporting to be sale deed executed on or about 28.12.2011), Ex.DW1/3 (copy of electricity bill) and Ex.DW1/4 (copy of statement of affairs as on 31.3.2010). The defendant also got examined his mother DW2 Usha Gupta, who during her examination-in-chief tendered her affidavit Ex.DW2/A. DW1 Vipin Gupta and DW2 Usha Gupta were cross- examined by counsel for the plaintiff, and thereafter evidence on behalf of the defendant was closed.
8. I have heard Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Rahul Ranjan, Advocate for the defendant and have gone through the material on record carefully. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of both the parties. My issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Re: Issue No. 5.
9. The onus of proof qua this issue was on both the parties, therefore, this issue is being taken up for consideration first of all. For decision on this issue the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 10.01.2022 rendered in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 entitled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation are noteworthy. In the said order dated 10.01.2022 the Apex Court, inter alia, held as follows:
CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 14 of 23In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.
10. Having drawn the attention of the court on the contents of the written statement, testimonies of DW1 Vipin Gupta and DW2 Usha Gupta and documents Ex.DW1/1 and Ex.DW1/2 it is submitted by counsel for the defendant that in the year 2010 the husband of the plaintiff had taken a loan of Rs.11,00,000/- from the mother of the defendant, and thereafter having purchased the suit property through the sale deed dated 13.5.2011, a copy of which is Ex.DW1/1, on or about 14.6.2011, under a promise to sell out the same to the mother of the defendant, handed over the possession of the suit property to the defendant and his mother. It is further submitted by counsel for the defendant that the present suit was instituted by the plaintiff on or about 10.10.2023, after passing of more than twelve years since the date on which the defendant was put in possession of the suit property, and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant was never put in possession of the suit property by the plaintiff or her husband in the year 2011, and instead after the death of Vijay Gupta, the husband of the plaintiff on 23.9.2016, the defendant along with his mother visited the house of the plaintiff to pay condolence and took away the sale deed of the suit property by committing theft. It CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 15 of 23 is for the submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the suit is within limitation.
11. It is not disputed on behalf of the defendant that prescribed period of limitation for the suit of the kind as is the present one is twelve years from the date of dispossession. Even if, for the sake of arguments, and without going into merits, the contention of the defendant that he came in possession of the suit property on or about 14.6.2011 is accepted by this court, the suit cannot be held as barred by limitation, for in the light of the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 entitled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation the limitation period stopped on 15.3.2000, and by that date only eight years and nine months had passed since 14.6. 2011; and the limitation again started to run from 01.3.2022. Thus, the plaintiff had time till the month of May 2025 to institute the suit. As already observed, the present suit was filed through e-filing on 10.10.2023, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. The issue No. 5 is decided against the defendant. Re: Issue No. 1.
12. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that the present suit does not involve any commercial dispute, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present suit and the plaint is required to be returned to the plaintiff for presenting the same before the court concerned.
13. In the written statement the defendant has taken the defence CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 16 of 23 that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit does not pertain to commercial dispute. In the light of the contention raised on behalf of the defendant, although no issue of jurisdiction has been framed in the suit, but the question being one of law which requires no further evidence, and related to the inherent jurisdiction of this court, the same can be taken up and decided at this stage. Thus, before dealing with the other issues framed in the suit this court needs to determine as to whether the dispute involved in the present suit can be termed as a commercial dispute, empowering this court to decide the suit and to pass the judgment.
14. The suit is for declaration of title qua the suit property on the basis of registered sale deed executed on 13.5.2011 and registered on 14.6.2011 in favour of the plaintiff, recovery of possession and other reliefs against the alleged trespasser (the defendant). The plaintiff nowhere claims in the plaint that there exists any agreement between her and the defendant in respect of the suit property.
15. It is submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that the suit property is situated in Chawri Bazar, Delhi which is a commercial area, therefore, this court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
16. Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (Act 4 of 2016) defines "commercial dispute" as under:-
2. Definitions. - (1) In this Act, useless the context otherwise requires,-
..........
(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of-
(i) ordinary transaction of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 17 of 23 enforcement and interpretation of such documents;
(ii) export or import of merchandise or services;
(iii) issues relating to admiralty and maritime law;
(iv) transactions relating to aircraft, aircraft engines, aircraft equipment and helicopters, including sales, leasing and financing of the same;
(v) carriage of goods;
(vi) construction and infrastructure contracts, including tenders;
(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;
(viii) franchising agreements;
(ix) distribution and licensing agreements;
(x) management and consultancy agreements;
(xi) joint venture agreements;
(xii) shareholders agreements;
(xiii) subscription and investment agreements pertaining to the services industry including outsourcing services and financial services;
(xiv) mercantile agency and mercantile usage;
(xv) partnership agreements;
(xvi) technology development agreement;
(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits; (xviii) agreements for sale of goods or provision of services; (xix) exploitation of oil and gas reserves or other natural resource including electromagnetic spectrum;
(xx) insurance and re-insurance;
(xxi) contract of agency relating to any of the above; and (xxii) such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government.
Explanation.- A commercial dispute shall not cease to be commercial dispute merely because-
(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realising of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property;
(b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public functions;
* * *
(g) "notification" means a notification published in the Official
Gazette and the expression "notify" with its cognate meanings and grammatical variations shall be construed CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 18 of 23 accordingly;
17. In the plaint, although it is stated in paragraph 27 that this court has jurisdiction, but it is nowhere stated that the court has jurisdiction because the suit pertains to a commercial dispute.
18. Along with the plaint, however, the plaintiff has filed a document entitled Nature of dispute under section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as amended up to date which reads as follows:
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CENTRAL-DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI CS (COMM) No. 1325 OF 2023 IN THE MATTER OF:
SAKSHI GUPTA ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
VIPIN GUPTA ...DEFENDANT
NATURE OF DISPUTE UNDER SECTION 2(1) (C) OF
COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015 AS AMENDED UP TO DATE
The plaintiff most humbly submits that the commercial dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant falls under the ambit of Section 2(1)(c) clause (xxii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which is as follows:
Section 2- Definitions Sub-Section (1) - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- Clause (c) - "commercial disputes means a dispute arising out of- Sub-Clause (xxii) - such other commercial disputes as may be notified by the Central Government Explanation - A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because
(a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property;CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 19 of 23
DELHI PLAINTIFF
DATED: 05.10.2023
THROUGH:
AAYUSH KUCHHAL AND RONAK BHALOTIA
D/6027/2021 PH/4113/2021
ADVOCATES
OFFICE: RVS LEGAL LLP
58-59, FIRST FLOOR, LOCAL SHOPPING COMPLEX,
DDA MARKET, LU BLOCK, PITAMPURA, DELHI-110034
MOBILE NUMBER: +91-8527274542
EMAIL ID:[email protected]
19. From the contents of the said document entitled Nature of dispute under section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as amended up to date it appears that the suit of the plaintiff, as per her knowledge and information, does not arise from the kind of the disputes as enumerated in sub-clauses (i) to (xxi) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016. According to the plaintiff her case is covered by sub-clause (xxii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016 which empowers the Central Government to notify any other dispute, not covered by sub-clauses (i) to (xxi) of clause (c) of sub-
section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016 as commercial dispute. In this regard no notification issued by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette has been produced to show that the present dispute is covered under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016. The explanation to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016 only explains the subjects of sub-clauses (i) to (xxii) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016, and the same is not a provision which on its own strength makes a dispute commercial CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 20 of 23 dispute which is otherwise not covered by sub-clauses (i) to (xxi) of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016. The maxim of interpretation "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" is clearly applicable.
20. On the point of jurisdiction of the Commercial Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and others, (2019) 13 SCALE 575 has held as follows:
11. A matter will fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court on the following factors:-
(i) it shall be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)
(c) of the Act; and
(ii) such commercial disputes are of a specified value as per Section 2(i) of the Act.
As the dispute in the present suit is not covered by clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 2 of Act 4 of 2016, therefore, this court is of the view that it has no jurisdiction on the subject matter of the present suit.
21. In so far as the issue of grant of declaration that at the strength of sale deed dated 14.6.2011 the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property is concerned, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 496 that, "It is settled law that once the Court holds that it has no jurisdiction in the matter, it should not consider the merits of the matter".
22. Since this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, and as per the law laid down in Jagraj Singh' s case (supra) the court cannot consider the merits of the matter, therefore, notwithstanding that the suit is within limitation and the plaintiff may be CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 21 of 23 owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.5.2011, a copy of which is Ex.PW1/1, this court cannot declare her as the owner of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not found entitled to the declaration through the decree of this court that she is entitled to the declaration that she is owner of suit property no. 2358, Chatta Shahji, Chippi Wara, Chawri Bazar, Delhi on the strength of sale deed dated 14.6.2011 executed in her favour. Issue No. 1 is decided against the plaintiff.
Re: Issue No. 2.
23. Since this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, and as per the law laid down in Jagraj Singh' s case (supra) this court cannot consider the merits of the matter, therefore, notwithstanding that the suit is within limitation and the plaintiff may be owner of the suit property on the basis of the sale deed dated 13.5.2011, this court cannot order handing over of possession of the suit property by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is not found entitled to possession of the suit property through the decree of this court. Issue No. 2 is decided against the plaintiff. Re: Issue No. 3.
24. As already observed, this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, and as per the law laid down in Jagraj Singh' s case (supra) this court cannot consider the merits of the matter. Therefore, by way of its decree this court cannot grant permanent injunction qua the suit property in favour of the plaintiff directing the CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 22 of 23 defendant not to create any third party interest in the suit property. Issue No. 3 is decided against the plaintiff.
Re: Issue No. 4.
25. Since this court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, and as per the law laid down in Jagraj Singh' s case (supra) this court cannot consider the merits of the matter, therefore, this court cannot grant damages in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant qua the suit property. The plaintiff is not found entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.6,30,00/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum through the decree of this court as sought in the plaint. Issue No. 4 is decided against the plaintiff.
Relief.
26. In view of above discussion, as it has been found that the suit does not arise from any commercial dispute as defined under section 2(1)(c) of Act 4 of 2016 and this court has no jurisdiction on the subject matter of the suit, therefore, the plaint is liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Since the defendant has appeared in this case, therefore, in view of the provisions of Rule 10A(1) of Order VII of CPC the plaintiff through her counsel is intimated that she may make an application under Order VII Rule 10A of CPC, if she so desire.
MANOJ Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR Pronounced in the open court KUMAR Date: 2025.08.20 16:45:14 +0530 on the 18th day of August 2025. (MANOJ KUMAR-1) District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, Central District: Tis Hazari: Delhi CS (COMM) No. 1325/2023 Page No. 23 of 23