Reserved On: 17.09.2025 Delivered On: 22.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Matters Under Article 227 No. - 1714 of 2024 M/s R.K. Electricals …..Petitioners(s) Versus M/s Mohammad Farhan Contractor Respondents(s) Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Manish Tondon, Vishal Tandon Counsel for Respondent(s) : Deepak Kumar Srivastava Court No. – 9 HON’BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Moradabad in Original Suit No. 756 of 2018 (R.K. Electricals Vs. Mohammad Farhan Contractor) holding the suit as filed by the plaintiff- petitioner is not maintainable, and therefore, dismissed the suit. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that commercial courts, commercial division and commercial appellate division of High Courts Act, 2015 came into existence w.e.f. 23.10.2015. Vide notification dated 02.11.2017, commercial 2 A 227 No. 1714 of 2024 courts were constituted by the State Government in 13 districts of U.P. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since in the district of Moradabad commercial court was not constituted, the petitioner instituted a suit on 30.10.2018 before the civil court. Thereafter in district Moradabad the commercial court was constituted on 28.02.2022. Issue no. 8 was framed by the trial court whether the court below has jurisdiction to hear the matter and the same has been decided by the order impugned. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, all suits and applications including application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value, pending in any civil court, in any district or area in respect of which a commercial court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such commercial courts. It has been next contended that in view of the provision of sub section 2 of section 15, the court below has erred in law in dismissing the suit. 5. Perused the order impugned. 6. Issue no. 8 was framed to the effect that whether the trial court has jurisdiction to hear and entertain the dispute. The court below while deciding the issue no. 8 has held that under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, commercial court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Since the plaintiff and the defendant are firms and there is a dispute between the parties and the dispute between the parties is commercial dispute for recovery of Rs. 32,26,256/-, the jurisdiction to hear the dispute is with the commercial court under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts 3 A 227 No. 1714 of 2024 Act, 2015 and therefore, issue no. 8 is decided in favour of the defendant. It has been held that the suit is not cognizable by the civil court and therefore, the suit is dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly contended that in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, all the suits and applications including including the applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relating to a commercial dispute of specified value pending in any civil court, in any district or area in respect of which a commercial court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such commercial court. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the court below instead of dismissing the suit ought to have transferred the suit to the commercial court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent tried to defend the order passed by the court below but could not deny the fact that the issue no. 8 was framed on the basis of pleadings of the defendant that suit is not cognizable by the civil court but is cognizable by the commercial court constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 9. In view of the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the court below has erroneously passed the order dated 24.11.2023, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for want of jurisdiction, ignoring the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and therefore, is liable to be set-aside. 10. The order dated 24.11.2023 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Moradabad in Original Suit No. 756 of 2018 (R.K. Electricals Vs. Mohammad Farhan Contractor) is hereby set-aside. 11.The Original Suit No. 756 of 2018 is restored to its original number and the trial court is directed to transfer the suit to the 4 A 227 No. 1714 of 2024 commercial court constituted under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, within four weeks from the date of filing of an application in this regard by the petitioner along with certified copy of this order. 12.With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed. (Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) September 22, 2025 Ved Prakash Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad