Commercial Dispute Valuation Based on Market Value Prevails Over Plaint Valuation for Jurisdictional Purposes

The Appellant challenged two orders from the City Civil Court at Calcutta: an ad interim injunction order dated October 17, 2025, and a subsequent extension order dated December 11, 2025

The Respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) had filed a suit in an ordinary civil court claiming interference with his possession of a "shop room" used as a godown for trade products

The Appellant preferred the appeals with a delay of sixty-six days and ten days respectively, citing the misplacement of case files during an advocate's office relocation

The Appellant sought impleadment of the legal heir of the deceased Respondent No. 2

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned under the Limitation Act?

2. Whether the dispute qualifies as a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil court?

3. Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting an injunction against construction when such relief was not prayed for in the pleadings?

4. Whether an ad interim injunction order is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC?

Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay based on "sufficient cause"

Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which defines a "commercial dispute" as one arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce

Section 12(1)(c) of the 2015 Act was applied, stipulating that the "specified value" of such disputes is determined by the market value of the immovable property

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the scope of injunctions and Order XLIII Rule 1(r) concerning the appealability of such orders

Regarding the delay, the court held that misplacing files during a chamber shift is a plausible explanation and does not necessitate a police complaint to be considered bona fide

On the jurisdictional merits, the court noted that the Respondent’s own pleadings described the property as a "shop room" and "godown," and since the market value of the College Street property likely exceeded the Rs. 3,00,000 threshold, it was a "commercial dispute" under Section 12 of the 2015 Act

Consequently, the trial court sitting in ordinary civil jurisdiction lacked the authority to entertain the suit or grant injunctions

The court found the trial judge erred by granting an injunction against "construction" when the plaintiff’s prayer only sought to prevent interference with possession, thereby granting relief extra-petita (beyond what was sought)

The court affirmed that ad interim orders are indeed appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(r)

On the merits, the appeals were allowed, and the orders dated October 17, 2025, and December 11, 2025, were set aside

The court held that the dispute was prima facie commercial and the trial court acted without jurisdiction by granting unsought reliefs

The trial judge was directed to decide the pending local inspection and temporary injunction applications expeditiously, while the Appellant's pending application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 was deemed infructuous