1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 338 of 2025 1 - Agrawal Structures Private Limited Through Its Director- Renu Agrawal, Aged About 56 Years, W/o Anil Kumar Agrawal, R/o Govind Kunj, Behind Amrit Talkies, Samta Colony, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No.1) 2 - Renu Agrawal W/o Anil Kumar Agrawal Aged About 56 Years Director- Agrawal Structures Private Limited, R/o Govind Kunj, Behind Amrit Talkies, Samta Colony, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant no.2) 3 - Anil Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Madanlal Agrawal Aged About 56 Years Director- Agrawal Structures Private Limited, R/o Govind Kunj, Behind Amrit Talkies, Samta Colony, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. (Defendant No.3) ...Applicants. versus 1 - Smt. Mamta Agrawal W/o Shri Narendra Agrawal Office- 15/210, Swastik Gopal Dar Mill Building, Ramsagarpara, Raipur City, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent/Plaintiff. For Applicants : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent : None. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2026.02.25 09:51:25 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 11/02/2026 1. Office notice dated 09.02.2026 shows that sole respondent has refused to accept the notice issued to her. In such circumstances, service of notice to sole respondent is deemed to be completed. 2. The Applicants have filed this Civil Revision challenging the legality and validity of order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the 12th District Judge, District Raipur C.G. in Civil Suit No.32B/2022 whereby, application preferred by applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC has been rejected. 3. The applicants by way of this Civil Revision have prayed to set aside the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the 12th District Judge, Raipur in Civil Suit No.32-B/2022 and allow the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and reject the plaint. 4. Necessary facts of the case are that Plaintiff/Respondent filed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Sixty Five Lakhs) against the applicants/defendants before the learned Civil Court claiming that the said amount was advanced to the applicants/defendants as a financial transaction with interest of 1.5% per annum. The Respondent/Plaintiff specifically averred that on the basis of the friendly relationship, the applicants/defendants demanded a loan of Rs. 65,00,000/- from the Respondent/Plaintiff to overcome their financial difficulties and develop their business. While demanding the said loan amount, 3 applicants/defendants assured the Respondent / Plaintiff to return the said amount within 3 months of date of each transaction and also to pay interest on the said amount at rate of 1.5% per annum. The Respondent/Plaintiff further averred in the para 10 of the Plaint that after receiving the loan amount of Rs. 65,00,000/-from the Respondent/Plaintiff, the Applicants/Defendants have not returned the said amount till date, nor they have provided the interest amount 1.5% per annum on the said loan amount. In the said proceedings, the Applicants/Defendants filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC contending that the suit is not maintainable before the concerned Civil Court, the transaction in question is commercial transaction falling within purview of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “the Act, 2015”). The subject matter of the dispute attracts the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court and not with the Civil Court. It was further submitted that only Commercial Court is competent to entertain the matter under ambit of section 2(1)(c)(i) of the Act, 2015. The Respondent/Plaintiff denied the contention raised in the Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by the Applicants /Defendants. That, the learned Trial Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 dismissed the application of the Applicants/Defendants while recording the finding that the transaction in question is not commercial transaction. The learned Trial Court concluded that since the transaction does not fall within the purview of commercial dispute under the Act, 2015, the Civil 4 Court retains the jurisdiction to hear and try the suit. The Applicants/Defendants most respectfully submits that the finding arrived by the learned trial Court is perverse, erroneous and arrived without proper application of law as stipulated "Commercial Dispute" under the Act, 2015. Hence this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from patent illegality, perversity and without the due application of law as stipulated “Commercial Dispute” under the Act, 2015. He submits that the nature of transaction is unquestionably a commercial transaction as the transaction involves the plaintiff/respondent acting as a financer. The admitted and undisputed facts reveals that the plaintiff/respondent has advanced sum of Rs.65,00,000/- to the applicants/defendants. The amount has been advanced at an agreed rate of interest of 1.5 % per annum. Therefore, in the present factual matrix, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff/respondent has acted in a capacity of financer. He submits that plaintiff/respondent is providing finance to the applicants/defendants with a view of earning interest with amount advance thereby making profit upon the transaction. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that advancement of money at 1.5% interest cannot be characterized as a friendly loan or said transaction devoid of commercial purpose. As imposition of interest demonstrates clear commercial intention of the parties with respect to the transactions. 5 7. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that under Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the Act, 2015 commercial Court is competent to entertain the present matter. Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the Act, 2015 reads as under:- “ 2. Definitions. -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- xxx (c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of- (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents;” xxx 8. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the aforesaid statute explicitly enumerates “Financer” as one of the main classes of a persons whose transaction comes within the purview of the commercial dispute. The transaction involving the advancement of money at interest necessarily involves one party as financer and respondent/plaintiff has herself pleaded that the amount was advanced at the rate of 1.5 % annum interest which in itself is hallmark of the commercial transaction. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant further refers to the notification dated 20.12.2023 (Annexure A/5) issued by the Government of 6 Chhattisgarh, Schedule III of which clearly provides that in matters where the pecuniary value exceeds Rs.50,00,000/-, the existing commercial Court i.e. Commercial Court Raipur shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide such cases including Arbitration matters. 10.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the averments made in the plaint. 11.From the averments made in the plaint, it appears that plaintiff/respondent has specifically pleaded that loan amount was taken by the defendants/applicants and for which, interest @ 1.5 % per annum was agreed to be given for each transaction. From further perusal of the plaint, it appears that whenever any principle amount has been advanced to the defendants/applicants, rate of interest was applicable on that amount which was fixed by the plaintiff/respondent. By performing six transactions, plaintiff/respondent has advanced money to the defendants/applicants. Further, plaintiff vide paragraph 9 of the plaint has specifically pleaded that for each of the principle amount advanced to the defendants/applicants, interest is applicable and as such, on the total principle amount of Rs.65,00,000/-, Rs.2,38,585/- would be added as interest amount. Plaintiff has sought relief to the extent that he be returned amount of Rs.65,00,000/- from the defendants along with interest @ 1.5% per annum which comes to Rs.2,38,585/-. Plaintiff has also sought 18 % per annum interest on Rs.65,00,000/- from the date of filing 7 of the suit till its realization. 12.All the aforesaid averments made by the plaintiff/respondent indicate that the dispute is commercial one and according to Schedule III of notification dated 20.12.2023 issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Law & Legislative Affairs Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, C.G., Commercial Court Raipur is having pecuniary jurisdiction of more than Rs.50 Lakhs and as such, plaint which has been filed before 12th District Judge, Raipur C.G. is not having jurisdiction to try the case on the ground that the matter relates to commercial dispute which is very clear from the averments made in the plaint and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Court would apply in this case and accordingly, the plaintiff has to prefer suit before the concerned Commercial Court as evident from Section 2 (1) (c) (i) of the Act, 2015. 13.Learned trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter that whenever any commercial dispute is being raised, the Commercial Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction is having power and authority to try the case. 14.In that view of the matter, the trial Court has illegally rejected the application filed by the applicants/defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC while not considering the aspects of the matter which are quite vivid from paragraphs 4, 9 and 13 as well as from the relief column of the plaint, which show that the dispute is exclusively commercial one. 8 15.In the result, impugned order dated 21.11.2025 is quashed/set aside, thereby this Civil Revision stands disposed of. 16.Consequently, the suit as filed by the plaintiff is required to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the CPC and it is held that suit as filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Avinash