R. RADHA Vs. MADHAN RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the parties in the Revisions are one and the same, they are taken up together and a common order is being passed.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the Revisions are as follows:

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for revision petitioner in C.R.P.3672 of 2022 and C.R.P. No. 3800 of 2022 would contend that dismissal of the petition filed under Order 7 Rule 11(a) and (d) seeks intervention of this Court, in as much as the learned District Judge dismissed the same in one line order, despite the petitioner had taken earnest effort to convince the court that the suit itself is not maintainable invoking Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and if at all the same is maintained, the suit is barred by limitation, as contemplated under the Commercial Courts Act 2015 and the Limitation Act. Thatapart, the learned Senior Counsel also urged upon this Court that the commercial courts act is not intended from the suits of ordinary money claim on alleged promissory note to invoke the commercial courts act and the jurisdiction of the court which the very purpose of the act will be defeated. He would further contend that that the claim made by the plaintiff in this suit does not fall under any one of the 22 categories, as mentioned under Sec. 2(1)(c) of the Act. The plaintiff has pouched his pleadings to fit in the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts Act, which in otherwise would ordinarily be a money suit rather than being filed under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The learned counsel further submitted that the promissory notes have not authorized to file under the commercial courts and commercial division, as the same are not mercantile documents as defined in Sec. 2(1) of the commercial courts act, hence, pleaded the dismissal of the suit in C.O.S.No.9 of 2022 and allow C.R.P.Nos 3672 and 3800 of 2022.