Court holds Commercial Courts Act, 2015 does not bar filing commercial disputes before civil courts; plaint must be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent Commercial Court
In a significant judgment dated September 30, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice S. Manu, delivered a clarifying verdict on the procedural treatment of commercial suits filed in ordinary civil courts. The case, Roy Poruthookkaran and Anr. v. Elizabath @ Thanka and Ors., revolved around whether a plaint involving a commercial dispute, but filed before a non-commercial civil court, should be rejected outright or returned for filing in the correct forum.
The dispute arose when defendants challenged the trial court's order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), instead of rejecting it under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. The plaint concerned a suit for dissolution of partnership-a commercial dispute as defined under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The appellants contended that since the matter fell within the definition of commercial disputes under Section 2(1)(c)(xv) of the Commercial Courts Act, the suit ought to have been filed exclusively before a Commercial Court. They argued that the plaint should have been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC on the ground that the suit was barred by law from being instituted in an ordinary civil court, and that returning the plaint was improper.
Justice Manu, however, rejected these contentions, affirming the trial court's order. The Court held that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, while establishing a specialized adjudicatory regime for commercial disputes, does not expressly bar the institution of commercial suits in ordinary civil courts. The Act envisages commercial suits as a species of civil suits, dealt with under the CPC with certain procedural modifications to ensure expedition.
Therefore, the Court reasoned, the filing of a commercial suit before a civil court does not amount to a suit barred by law, which is the condition for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC. Instead, the proper course is to return the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, enabling the plaintiff to institute the suit before the competent Commercial Court.
The Court relied on several precedents, including the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) and consistent decisions from Bombay and Delhi High Courts, which supported the principle that in cases of misfiling before an incorrect court, the plaint should be returned rather than rejected.
Justice Manu further clarified that return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 is not limited to cases of territorial or pecuniary jurisdictional defects but extends to situations where the suit is filed before a court other than the one having jurisdiction over the commercial dispute.
The Court noted that earlier Kerala High Court decisions on transfer of suits to Commercial Courts did not directly address whether the plaint should be rejected or returned and that the present judgment fills this gap, providing authoritative guidance.
Consequently, the Kerala High Court dismissed the appeal by the defendants, upholding the order to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation before the appropriate Commercial Court, without imposing costs.
This judgment reinforces procedural clarity and ensures that commercial disputes are adjudicated expeditiously in the correct forum without unnecessary dismissal at the threshold, safeguarding litigants' rights while respecting jurisdictional mandates.
Bottom Line:
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Where a suit involving a commercial dispute is filed before an ordinary civil court, plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, since the Act does not bar institution of such suit - Proper course is return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before competent Commercial Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Sections 2(1)(c), 6, 15; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rules 10, 10A, 11(d)
Roy Poruthookkaran v. Elizabath @ Thanka, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2990682
