S/L 76 01.09.2026 Court No.655 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CO 131 of 2026 Sri Partha Ghosh & Anr. Vs. Sri Nilratan Ghosh Mr. Subrata Ghosh, Mr. Pratyush Ghosh. … for the Petitioner. Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Tarraknath Halder. … for the Opposite Party. 1. Heard learned Advocate for the parties. 2. The instant revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 11th December, 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in connection with Ejectment Suit No. 96 of 2014, whereby the application filed by the defendant/petitioner questioning the maintainability of the suit before the learned Civil Court, on the ground of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was rejected. 3. The plaintiff/opposite party instituted the aforesaid suit seeking eviction and recovery of possession in respect of the suit premises, being a shop room, principally on the ground of default in payment of rent. It is not in dispute that the suit premises are being utilised by the defendant/petitioner as a shop for commercial purposes. 2 4. During pendency of the suit, an application was taken out by the plaintiff seeking amendment of the plaint, inter alia, for incorporating the necessary averments with reference to Section 2(g) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The said amendment was sought in the course of the proceeding and the issue as to the appropriate forum before which the suit ought to be tried has subsequently been raised by the defendant/petitioner. 5. The defendant/petitioner thereafter filed an application questioning the maintainability of the suit before the learned Civil Court. It was contended that, since the suit premises are admittedly being used for commercial purposes, the dispute would fall within the expression “commercial dispute” as contemplated under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and, consequently, the learned Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate the suit. On such premise, it was argued that the suit ought to be transferred to, or tried by, the competent Commercial Court. 6. In support of such contention, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant/petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Molina Dey versus Runa Kundu, passed in APOT 68 of 2025. Relying upon the said decision, it has been submitted that an ejectment proceeding relating to a commercial premises is 3 liable to be treated as a commercial dispute and, therefore, the matter ought to be adjudicated by the Commercial Court and not by the ordinary Civil Court. 7. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party has relied upon Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and has submitted that the mere fact that the premises are being utilised for commercial purposes does not, by itself, determine the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court. According to the learned Advocate, the question of jurisdiction is also required to be examined with reference to the pecuniary jurisdiction prescribed under the Act and the notification issued by the appropriate Government in that regard. 8. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon the proviso to Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which provides, inter alia, that in respect of a territory over which a High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value as may be considered necessary, subject to the statutory limits prescribed therein. It has accordingly been contended on behalf of the plaintiff/opposite party that, having regard to the pecuniary value involved in the present proceeding, the suit does not fall within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Court and, therefore, 4 the learned Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same. 9. I have considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and have carefully perused the impugned order as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench relied upon by the defendant/petitioner. 10. It is an admitted position that the suit premises are being utilised as a commercial shop. However, the character of the premises as a commercial establishment, by itself, cannot be considered in isolation while determining the jurisdiction of the forum. The applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 has to be examined with reference to the statutory requirements contained therein, including the prescribed pecuniary jurisdiction. The fact that a dispute may possess the attributes of a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act does not dispense with the requirement that the dispute must also satisfy the applicable pecuniary threshold for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commercial Court. 11. I have also gone through the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Molina Dey (supra). The said decision does not appear to create any controversy or dispense with the statutory requirement contained in Section 3 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 concerning the pecuniary limits of the Commercial Court. The principle laid down in the 5 said decision, therefore, has to be understood and applied in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole and cannot be construed to mean that every dispute concerning a premises used for commercial purposes, irrespective of its pecuniary value, must necessarily be tried by a Commercial Court. 12. The learned Trial Court, upon consideration of the materials placed before it and the applicable statutory provisions, rejected the objection raised by the defendant/petitioner under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. On consideration of the relevant aspects, I find no jurisdictional error, perversity, material irregularity or failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the learned Trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory in nature and is not intended to be exercised as a substitute for an appellate jurisdiction. Unless the order under challenge suffers from patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional infirmity or such material irregularity as results in failure of justice, interference by the High Court in exercise of such jurisdiction is not warranted. The present case does not disclose any such exceptional circumstance. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly the pecuniary aspect involved 6 in the proceeding, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the defendant/petitioner questioning the maintainability of the suit on the ground of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The reliance placed upon Molina Dey (supra) does not persuade this Court to take a different view, particularly when the statutory requirement relating to pecuniary jurisdiction remains applicable. 15. Accordingly, I find no sufficient ground to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revisional application, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed. 16. The learned Trial Court is requested to make every endeavour to dispose of Ejectment Suit No. 96 of 2014 as expeditiously as possible, preferably without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, subject, however, to its own convenience and the prevailing docket of the Court. 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court. 19. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Prasenjit Biswas, J.)