OD-5, 7, 8,9,10, 11, 12 & 13 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IA NO. GA/5/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/7/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/8/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/9/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/10/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/11/2025 2 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/12/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. IA NO. GA/13/2025 IN CS/220/2024 MANGAL BUILDERS AND ENTERPRISES LIMITED & ORS. VS. WILLIAMSON MAGOR & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date: 29th September, 2026 Appearance: Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sarosij Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Upama Bhattacharjee, Adv. For the plaintiffs/petitioners Mr. Ritoban Sarkar, Adv. Mr. Soham Sen, Adv. Mr. Srinjoy Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Khaitan, Adv. For defendant no.1 Mr. Sakya Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. M.S. Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Chatterjee, Adv. For defendant no.2 The Court :- In a suit for recovery of possession with mesne profits on the ground that the lease in favour of the defendant no.1 has expired by efflux of time on 30th April, 2024, several applications have been made. 3 GA/5/2025 is an application by the plaintiffs inter alia for injunction and for appointment of Receiver wherein an interim order of injunction is in subsistence. GA/7/2025 is an application by the plaintiffs for summary judgment under the provisions of Chapter XIIIA of the Original Side Rules of this Court. GA/8/2025 to GA/12/2025 are applications for addition of parties. GA/13/2025 is an application for rejection of plaint made by the defendant no.2 inter alia under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short CPC). The application for rejection of plaint is taken up for consideration before other applications since it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of this Court to receive, try and determine the suit. In GA/5/2025, there is, however, an order dated 5th May, 2025 restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and assigns from dealing with, disposing of, alienating, encumbering or from creating any further third party interest as also not to change the nature and character of the suit property in any manner whatsoever was passed which is still in subsistence. This restraint order was passed on the basis of an undertaking given by the defendants through their advocate that the said defendants were not willing to deal with dispose of and encumber any part or portion of the suit property as recorded in the order dated 5th May, 2025. On a perusal of the application made by the defendant no.2 for rejection of plaint, it appears that the main ground of the said defendant is 4 that the suit property was used for commercial purpose at the time when the suit was instituted and, as such, going by the provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ( in short 2015 Act) considered in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 ( Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises V. K. S. Infra Space LLP) the suit ought to have been framed and filed as a commercial suit under the provisions of 2015 Act and the ratio laid down in the a judgment reported in (2021) 1 Cal LT 129 (Deepak Polymers Private Limited Vs. Anchor Investments Private Limited) does not apply. The plaintiffs on the other hand submit that the suit was instituted as an ordinary suit in view of the ratio laid down by a Coordinate Bench after considering the judgment of Ambalal Sarabhai (supra) wherein the said learned Single Judge had held that where the suit is for recovery of possession of immovable properties under the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the same will be an ordinary suit and not a commercial suit under the provisions of 2015 Act. The view taken by the Coordinate Bench in the Deepak Polymers (supra) has been subsequently overturned by a Division Bench in the judgment reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5076 (T.E. Thomson & Company Limited-Versus-Swarnalata Chopra Nee Kapur and Another). The ratio laid down in T.E. Thomson (supra) is, however, under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).70360/2025 (Swarnalata Chopra Nee Kapur-Versus-T.E. Thomson And Company Limited & Anr.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court by 5 an order dated 20th March, 2026 has entertained the special leave petition by granting stay of further proceedings in the suit being CS (Com) No. 4 of 2023 involved in the said matter. The said order also takes note of the Civil Appeal No. 4660 of 2021 arising out of the case in Deepak Polymers (supra). The plaintiffs, however, say that they are willing to approach this Court in its Commercial Division since the hearing of the suit cannot be taken forward due to pendency of these applications and the defendant No.2 by taking advantage of the situation is collecting huge monthly rent/occupation charges from the occupants of the suit premises causing further prejudice and detriment to the plaintiffs. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record, the plaint filed in CS No. 220 of 2024 is directed to be returned with the Court fees for being filed in the Commercial Division of this Court if otherwise permissible in law particularly in view of the statement made by the plaintiffs in their affidavit in opposition filed in GA No. 13 of 2025 and the stand taken by the defendant No.2 in its application being GA No. 13 of 2025. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Department is directed to return the plaint with the Court fees to the plaintiffs after completing all formalities by 15th October, 2026 by passing this order under the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of CPC which has been made applicable to this Court pursuant to an amendment published in the Calcutta Gazette in 1974. Once the plaint is returned, the Department shall deregister the suit number so that the suit is not shown to be pending as an ordinary suit. The plaintiffs 6 will be at liberty to use the same Court fees to institute the suit in the Commercial Division, if otherwise permissible in law. Since the plaint is directed to be returned, GA 13 of 2025 is disposed of. All other applications recorded in the order are disposed of without any further order. (ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) Sb/