Rhinoceros Equipments Pvt Ltd vs Nitesh Kumar Jha & Anr.

$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 16 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLNT010037352023
+ RFA(COMM) 671/2025 & CM APPLs. 75671/2025, 55463/2026
RHINOCEROS EQUIPMENTS PVT LTD .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Arbaaz Hussain, Ms. Jayestha
Kamboj, Advocates

versus

NITESH KUMAR JHA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kanwar Anshuman Singh and
Mr. Kanwar Aditya Singh, Advocates

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER PAL SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 96 of
CPC read with Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
challenging impugned judgment and decree dated 01.07.2025, passed by
learned District Judge (Commercial Court-01), North District, Rohini Court,
New Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 198/2023 titled Nitesh Kumar Jha v. M/s
Rhinoceros Equipments Pvt Ltd.
2. To the extent necessary, the facts as pleaded are that Appellant began
availing services of the Respondent for shipping and customs clearance in
2015. Disputes having arisen between the parties pertaining to some
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 1 of 6

invoices issued in the course of business, Respondent filed suit for recovery
of Rs.54,67,346/- against the Appellant herein being CS(COMM) 198/2023.
Appellant filed written statement within prescribed limitation period raising
bona fide defence and disputing the inflated claims made by the Respondent.
However, the written statement was not taken on record by the learned Trial
Court and Appellant’s defence was struck off, whereafter the Court
proceeded to frame issues on 08.02.2024. After the evidence concluded,
Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree, which is challenged
before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant raises twofold issues for
consideration by this Court laying a challenge to the impugned judgment
and decree. It is urged, though not pleaded, that Respondent had initially
filed an ordinary suit which was listed in a non-commercial Court and vide
order dated 05.05.2022, the Court directed the suit to be placed before
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge on 19.05.2022 for directions
since the suit was commercial in nature. Learned District Judge transferred
the matter to the Commercial Court, where it was listed on 20.05.2022 and a
question was framed by the Commercial Court as to whether a suit received
on transfer from some other Court was maintainable and could be proceeded
with notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff had not exhausted the remedy of
Pre-Institution Mediation, mandatory under Section 12-A of Commercial
Courts Act, 2015 and listed the matter for consideration on the said issue on
01.08.2022. However, later on 02.11.2022, the plaint was returned by the
Court to the Plaintiff for filing a fresh suit as a commercial suit in the
concerned Commercial Court, which was wholly erroneous as the suit ought
to have been entertained on transfer. It is also urged that this impacted the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 2 of 6

right of the Appellant since he had already filed a written statement in the
earlier suit and this fact ought to have been considered by the Court, which
in the subsequent suit rejected the defence of the Defendant by not taking
the written statement on record on the ground that it was filed beyond the
permissible limitation period. The argument is that if a commercial suit is
filed in a non-commercial Court, both paths can be adopted i.e., plaint can
be returned for filing a fresh suit or the pending suit can be transferred to a
Commercial Court and therefore, the earlier suit ought to have been
entertained on transfer. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Single
Judge of this Court in Namita Gupta v. Suraj Holdings Limited, 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 143.
4. The second issue raised by the Appellant is that even assuming for the
sake of argument that the defence of the Appellant was struck off and
written statement was not taken on record, Trial Court could not have denied
the right of cross-examination to the Appellant of Respondent’s witnesses
and by doing so, Trial Court has caused grave prejudice to the defence of the
Appellant and the judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law. To
buttress his plea, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Anvita Auto Tech Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Aroush Motors and
Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2181.
5. Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, submits that there is
no legal infirmity in the order dated 02.11.2022, whereby the non-
commercial Court returned the plaint for filing a fresh suit as a commercial
suit in the appropriate Court and moreover, the said order was never
challenged by the Appellant and this issue is being raised for the first time
after the second suit has been decreed against the Appellant. As for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 3 of 6

second issue, it is strenuously urged that Trial Court had given ample
opportunity to the Appellant to cross-examine PW-1, which is recorded in
the impugned judgment and therefore, reliance on the judgment in Anvita
Auto Tech Works (supra) is misplaced.
6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
rival submissions.
7. Parties are ad idem that Respondent had filed a suit for recovery being
CS DJ 801/2018, which was listed before a non-commercial Court and was
subsequently transferred by the learned District Judge to a Commercial
Court. By order dated 02.11.2022, the plaint was returned to the Plaintiff to
file a fresh commercial suit in the appropriate Court. This order was never
challenged by the Appellant and has attained finality. Therefore, it is not
open to the Appellant to question the return of the plaint in the present
appeal, wherein challenge is laid to the judgment and decree passed in
CS(COMM) 198/2023, which was filed after the plaint was returned.
8. Even otherwise, there is no merit in the argument that the Trial Court
erred in returning the plaint and ought to have entertained the suit on
transfer, invoking Section 24 of CPC. This issue came up for a consideration
before a learned Single Judge of this Court in Namita Gupta (supra) and
after examining the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as also
Section 24 of CPC and placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S. Infraspace LLP
and Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585 as also judgments of the Division Benches
of this Court, Court held that once it is accepted that a suit, which though
relates to a commercial dispute of a specified amount, is filed as an ordinary
suit before a Civil Court, the plaint shall be returned under Order VII Rule
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 4 of 6

10 CPC to the Plaintiff to present the same before the Commercial Court of
appropriate jurisdiction, though equally, either of the parties may invoke
provisions of Section 24 to seek transfer of the suit. But the significant part
of the judgment, which directly applies to the instant case is the ruling that
in terms of the hierarchy of Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
the Additional District Judge or even the District Judge only have the power
to return the plaint in a suit of commercial nature of a specified value and
the power to transfer only lies with the High Court under Section 24 of CPC.
9. In Ambalal Sarabhai (supra), albeit the fact was converse inasmuch
as a non-commercial suit was filed before a Commercial Court and
Defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, which was
rejected by the Commercial Court but on appeal, the High Court directed
return of the plaint, which order was affirmed and approved by the Supreme
Court. In Narendra Kumar v. Om Daily Needs Retailing Pvt. Ltd. and
Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5618, Division Bench of this Court was
considering a challenge to an order passed by the learned District Judge
(Commercial Court), returning the plaint of a suit, which though originally
filed before an ordinary Civil Court, was transferred by the learned District
Judge to the Commercial Court. Division Bench dismissed the appeal and
observed that the transfer of the case by the District Judge was incorrect and
the Commercial Court rightly returned the plaint to be filed in appropriate
format before the Commercial Court. This view was also taken by the
Calcutta High Court in Maharshi Commerce Limited v. Rajiv R. Balani
and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Cal 4555 as also by the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation
(APIIC), Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director and Others v.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 5 of 6

Meghavaram Power Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Authorized Signatory K.
Somaraju, 2023 SCC OnLine AP 794, to refer to a few in order to avoid
prolixity. Accordingly, we find no merit in the contention that the plaint in
the first suit filed by the Respondent was erroneously returned.
10. As for the second issue that the Trial Court ought to have granted
opportunity of cross-examination of PW-1 to the Appellant, it is an
undisputed position that vide order dated 08.02.2024, Trial Court declined to
take the written statement on record, noting that Defendant was duly served
with summons on 25/27.04.2023 but the written statement was filed on
11.09.2023, which was beyond 120 days and proceeded to settle the issues,
whereafter the case proceeded to trial. This order has remained unchallenged
till date. Order sheets of the Trial Court as also paragraph 3 of the impugned
judgment reflect that Appellant had cross-examined PW-1 at length despite
the defence being struck off and therefore, there can be no grievance on this
aspect. The judgment in Anvita Auto Tech Works (supra) does not come to
the aid of the Appellant as in the said case ‘nil’ opportunity was granted by
the Trial Court to the Defendant to cross-examine Plaintiff’s witnesses after
the defence was struck off.

11. For all the aforesaid reasons, the appeal has no merit and is
accordingly dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.


JYOTI SINGH, J


GURVINDER PAL SINGH, J
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ AU
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:24.10.2026
18:19:17
RFA(COMM) 671/2025 Page 6 of 6