SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Restoration Application No. 04 of 2025 In CLR/20/2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Shivam Sharma, (through V.C.) learned counsel for the revisionist. 2. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Restoration application has been moved for recalling the order dated 13.08.2025 whereby the instant revision has been dismissed in default. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not seriously objected the restoration application. 5. Accordingly, order dated 13.08.2025 is recalled. Revision is restored to its original number. 6. The instant revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 30.01.2024 passed by II Addl. District Judge, Dehradun in SCC Suit No. 76 of 2022 (S.K. Gupta Vs. Vinod Gairola) whereby application moved by the revisionist / defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC has been dismissed. 7. The main contention of the revisionist in the application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC is that the shop, in question, is in fact rented for commercial use, therefore, suit filed by the respondent plaintiff is not maintainable and he has remedy to approach the Commercial Court. 8. Learned trial court dismissed the application of the revisionist by observing that there is no commercial transaction between the plaintiff and defendant, therefore, the dispute, as raised by the plaintiff in suit cannot be treated as commercial dispute. Now, being aggrieved with the said, instant revision has been preferred. 9. Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 defines “commercial disputes” and its sub clause (7) clearly provides that agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce should go to the Commercial Courts. 10. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the respondent apprised to this Court that proceedings of the suit have never been stayed by this Court and in the pending suit, written statement has been filed by the revisionist and the trial court has already framed points of determination and all these pleas, as taken by the revisionist in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC are available to the defendant to raise before the trial court. Even otherwise, he submits that the plea as taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC is not sustainable since the valuation of the suit is less than Rs. 3,00,000/- and the suit, where valuation is above than Rs. 3,00,000/- is maintainable before the Commercial Court and in such an eventuality, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit. 11. Be that as it may, written statement has already been filed by the revisionist and the trial court has also framed point of determination, therefore, all the pleas taken in the application under Order 7 Rule 11 by the revisionist can be raised by the revisionist before the trial court. 12. This Court does not find any merit in the present revision particularly on two points, the first one is valuation of the suit is less than Rs. 3,00,000/- and second one is the revisionist has already filed written statement in the suit and point of determination has already been framed. 13. In such view of the matter, revision is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 15.12.2025 SKS