Bar U/S 8 Commercial Courts Act Is Confined To Civil Revision Petition; It Doesn’t Bar Maintainability & Jurisdiction Under Article 227: Andhra Pradesh HC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court observed that the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is confined to the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and the same does not bar the maintainability and jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Court observed thus in a civil revision petition preferred against the order of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes.

A Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Nyapathy Vijay held, “In our view, the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act to maintainability of the civil revision petition against the interlocutory order is confined to the civil revision petition under Section 115 of CPC and such bar does not operate to bar the maintainability and the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of this Court.”

The Bench said that the bar under the statute with respect to any specific remedy is to be confined to that remedy only.

Advocate S. Rajan appeared on behalf of the petitioner while Advocate S.A.V. Ratnam appeared on behalf of the respondents.

In this case, a commercial suit was filed by the respondents against the petitioner for specific performance of the Development Agreement or alternatively for recovery of an amount with subsequent interest and for other reliefs. The respondents filed an application for injunction thereby restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit property. The petitioner filed an application under Order XIII Rules 3 and 4 read with Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to de-exhibit or reject the agreement for non-payment of proper stamp duty thereon.

On the contrary, the respondents objected that such an application was not maintainable. The Special Judge partly allowed the petitioner’s application and held that the land so involved appeared to be agricultural land and hence the agreement did not fall within the ambit of Article 6 (B) of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Challenging this, the petitioner was before the High Court.

The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act against the remedy of revision is from an interlocutory order. So, if the order is the interlocutory in nature, passed under the Commercial Courts Act, revision cannot be filed before the forum provided for revision, but when it comes to the remedy of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such a bar cannot be read, as a bar to the maintainability or entertainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”

The Court reiterated that the remedy provided by the Constitution and before the Constitutional Court cannot be barred by any provision of any statute and the entertainability of the petition under Article 227 and the scope of interference or no interference at all by the Court in the exercise of the judicial discretion is one thing, which is quite different from the petition being maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution.

“We entertain the petition and proceed to consider the merits of the impugned order, whether legal or otherwise, but keeping in view the scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India”, it said.

The Court further noted that there is no dispute between the parties that the agreement is the one with respect to agricultural land and for lay out and the parties are also not at issue that the same is not for construction of building etc., but is only for lay out.

“The agreement being for development for lay out, it would be covered under Article 6 (B). … The suit agreement of sale of agricultural land could not be said to be covered under Article 6 (B) of Schedule-1A of the Act”, it added.

The Court also elucidated that if the document does not pertain to the purposes mentioned under Article 6 (B), Article 6 (B) would not be applicable.

“We do not find any illegality in the order of the Special Court to the extent of challenge. The view taken by the Special Court has the support of law i.e., in Saranam Peda Appaiah (supra). In the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is not a fit case for interference. Thus, holding the petition under Article 227 to be maintainable and also entertaining it, we do not find it a fit case to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the civil revision petition.

Cause Title- P. Udaya Bhaskara Reddy v. M/s. Sreepada Real Estates & Developers Hyderabad and another

Click here to read/download the Judgment