A development agreement for immovable property constitutes a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act.

The appeal challenged the order dated 20 July 2026 by which the learned Single Judge refused ad interim relief to the appellant-plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s suit arose from an October 2020 Memorandum of Understanding concerning the development of immovable property.

Under the arrangement, the plaintiff allegedly paid ₹2 crores to the respondents through nine cheques between 5 and 9 November 2020.

The respondents allegedly failed to perform their obligations and subsequently agreed to repay the amount with interest.

Approximately ₹50 lakhs was repaid between June 1 and June 30, 2023.

The respondents thereafter allegedly executed a balance confirmation in January 2026 but failed to pay the outstanding amount, leading the plaintiff to institute a recovery suit for the balance amount and interest.

In appeal, the respondents questioned the suit’s maintainability on the grounds that it involved a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and was also a suit for land.

The plaintiff sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before the appropriate forum.

Whether the dispute arising from the Memorandum of Understanding for development of immovable property constituted a “commercial dispute” under Sections 2(1)(c)(vii) and 2(1)(c)(xi) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Whether, since the suit was filed after notification of the specified value, the plaint was required to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather than the suit being transferred under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

Whether the issue of whether the suit was a suit for land required determination at that stage?

Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 covers disputes arising from agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, while Section 2(1)(c)(xi) covers disputes arising from joint venture agreements.

A development agreement concerning immovable property, by its nature, involves the commercial exploitation of that property and may therefore constitute a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii).

Where a suit involving a commercial dispute of the specified value is filed in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction after issuance of the relevant pecuniary-value notification, the plaint may be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before the appropriate forum, rather than transferred under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.

The Court relied on Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. v. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2021 Cal 190, as noted in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1028, and Rule 9(2) of the High Court at Calcutta Commercial Courts Practice Directions, 2021.

The Court distinguished Pradeep Kumar Jain & Sons HUF v. Sri Sri Iswar Mahadeb & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 11905, because that matter concerned a suit filed before the specified-value notification and involved transfer under Section 15.

The plaint itself showed that the MoU concerned the development of immovable property and that the plaintiff’s monetary claim arose from the respondents’ alleged failure to perform the development arrangement and repay the advance.

The Court held that a development agreement necessarily contemplates commercial exploitation of the concerned property; consequently, the agreement related to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act.

Since the suit was instituted after the relevant specified-value notification, Section 15 did not provide the appropriate mechanism for transferring it to the Commercial Division.

Instead, Order VII Rule 10 CPC, read with Rule 9(2) of the Commercial Courts Practice Directions, required return of the plaint for presentation before the competent forum.

Having resolved jurisdiction on the commercial-dispute ground, the Court considered it unnecessary to decide the separate objection that the suit was a suit for land.

The Court expressly kept all issues other than the commercial-dispute question open.

The plaintiff was permitted to take return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and present it before the appropriate forum.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

The Court did not decide the merits of the parties’ claims, the suit-for-land objection, or any other issues beyond the classification of the dispute as commercial.