BELLAM BALAKRISHNA Vs. GREENMOUNT DEVELOPERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the continuous return of the C.A.O.P. vide G.L.No.471 of 2023 in C.A.O.P.No.__of 2023, dtd. 27/6/2023, by the Commercial Court, Vijayawada, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the repeated returns are made by the learned trial Judge on the maintainability of the petition before the Commercial Court. Despite the matter being represented time and again the same objection is being taken by the learned Judge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the above the AOP has not be numbered since the specified value in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short "the Act") has been defined in Sec. 2 (i) of the Act as "not less than three lakhs". He, therefore, contains that once the pecuniary value has been fixed by the Parliament in Sec. 2 (i) of the Act the Commercial Court, which has been constituted by G.O.Ms. No.27, dtd. 1/3/2017, has to entertain the dispute if the value exceeds the specified value viz., three lakh rupees. Admittedly, in this case the case value is above three lakhs and learned counsel, therefore, states that in terms of Sec. 6 and other Sec. read with Sec. 2(i), the Commercial Court is bound to number the AOP and hear the same. He also points out that the absence of the Notification under Sec. 3(1A) is not material and the High Court of Jharkhand in Daimler Financial Services India Ltd., v Vikas Kumar & Another,W.P.(C) No.3941 of 2019 has already held that the absence of a Notification is not material.