[2025:RJ-JP:17635] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 329/2024 M/s Arihant Dream Build Estate Private Limited, Through Director, Registered Office-703, Sun Tower, Gandhi Nagar Mod, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus 1. Ramjilal Meena S/o Sh. Chitar Mal Meena, Profession- Kastkar, R/o-Village Tamadiya, Tehsil-Chaksu, Distt. Jaipur, Presently-House No. 170, Surya Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. …..Respondent/Plaintiff 2. Shyam Sundar Sharma, S/o Sh. Sitaram Sharma, R/o 24, Printers Colony, Hariyana House, Near Choradiya Petrol Pump, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Smt. Hansa Solanki, W/o Sh. Anil Solanki, R/o 132, 133, Keshav Vihar, Gopalpura, Byepass, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Rishabh Goyal, S/o Sh. Rakesh Goyal, R/o-3 Ta 12, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ---Prforma Respondents/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Kumar Bagri, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. N. Gupta Soorwal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment Date of Judgment 28/04/2025 The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant (for short ‘the defendant’) under Section 115 CPC against the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metro-I (for short ‘the trial court’) in Civil Suit No.01/2022, titled as “Ramjilal V/s M/s Arihant Dream Build Estate Private Limited & Ors.”whereby the trial court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 [2025:RJ-JP:17635] (2 of 4) [CR-329/2024] Rule 11 CPC read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,22,10,000/- against the defendant as well as proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4 before the trial court in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to the effect that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because dispute between the defendant and the plaintiff being a commercial dispute, the Commercial Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate it but the trial court vide order dated 22.07.2024 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant further submits that a bare reading of the suit, it is revealed that the said money was given by the plaintiff to the defendant for business purposes. So, the petition filed by the defendant be allowed, the order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the trial court be set-aside and the plaint filed by the plaintiff be returned to him to file the same before the competent court having jurisdiction to try the same. Learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) S. P. Velayutham & Anr. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 2986/2024 decided on 26.02.2024; (2) Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. V/s K.S. Infraspace LLP & Ors. Reported in MANJU/SC/1378/2019; (3). Soni Dave & Ors. V/s Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Limited reported in 2016: DHC: 5068. [2025:RJ-JP:17635] (3 of 4) [CR-329/2024] (4). Blue Nile Developers Private Limited V/s. Movva Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Reported in 2021: APHC : 28878. (5) Jagmohan Behi V/s. State Bank of Indore reported in 2017 : DHC :5761-DB. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that the defendant wanted to cause delay in the suit proceedings. Previously, he also filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court to the effect that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff. The trial court vide order dated 13.04.2023 dismissed the said application filed by the defendant with cost of Rs.1,000/-. He further submits that after that, the defendant filed the written statement before the trial court in which he had not taken any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court. Now, the matter has been posited by the trial court for the plaintiff’s evidence. So, the trial court vide order dated 22.07.2024 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, the present petition filed by the defendant deserves to be dismissed on cost. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Salim D. Agboatwala & Ors. V/s. Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar & Ors. Reported in AIR 2021 SC 5212. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,22,10,000/- against the defendant as well as proforma defendant Nos.2 to 4. Previously, the defendant [2025:RJ-JP:17635] (4 of 4) [CR-329/2024] filed an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the trial court mentioning that no cause of action arose to the plaintiff. The trial court vide order dated 13.04.2023 dismissed the said application with cost of Rs.1,000/-. The defendant has filed the written statement in which he has not taken any objection regarding the jurisdiction of the court. Presently, the issues have been framed and the matter has been posted for the plaintiff’s evidence by the trial court. The defendant wanted to cause delay in the suit proceedings. So, in my considered opinion, the trial court vide order dated 22.07.2024 rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/88