JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court, Vadodara dated 20.9.2016 passed below Ex.9 in Commercial Civil Suit No. 252 of 2016, by which the learned Commercial Court has allowed the said application preferred by the original defendant and has rejected the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1992" for short), the suit before the Civil Court/ Commercial Court shall not be maintainable and the dispute between the parties to the suit is required to be resolved by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act, the original plaintiff has preferred the present First Appeal. 2. Mr. Ansin Desai, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant- original plaintiff and Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original defendant. 3. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the dispute between the parties is pertaining to and/or with respect to the Public Works Contract. The aforesaid is not disputed by Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff. On an application filed by the defendant below Ex.9 submitted under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relying upon and considering the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University vs. Patel and Company, 1999 (2) GLR 1264 and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. vs. Gujarat Agricultural University and Another, 2000 (4) GLR 3666 , by which with respect to other Universities established under the provisions of the University Act, 1969 and with respect to Sardar Patel University and considering the provisions of the Act of 1992, the learned Commercial Court has allowed the said application and held that the Suit before the Civil Court/Commercial Court shall be barred and the dispute between the parties is required to be resolved only through/by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1992. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned order, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal. 4. Mr. Desai, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4.1. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has further submitted that merely because Pay and Allowances are paid by the State Government, it cannot be said that the State has control over the defendant-Maharaja Sayajirao University and therefore, it can be said to be Public Undertaking and therefore, shall not fall within the definition of Public Undertaking under the provisions of the Act of 1992 and therefore, solely on the aforesaid ground the learned Commercial Court ought not to have allowed the application Ex.9 and ought not to have rejected the plaint. 4.2. In support of his above submission, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for PIL and Another vs. Union of India and Another, 2011 (2) GLH 107. 4.3. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff has further submitted that even otherwise, the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in rejecting the plaint. It is submitted that if the learned Commercial Court was of the opinion that the Civil Court/Commercial Court has no jurisdiction, in that case, instead of rejecting the plaint, the learned Commercial Court ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff to present it before the learned tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992. Making above submissions, it is requested to admit/allow the present appeal and/or modify the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court to the extent instead of rejecting the plaint, to return it to the plaintiff to present it before the learned tribunal. 5. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant. 5. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant. It is submitted that after considering the similar provisions under the Sardar Patel University Act as well as Gujarat Agricultural University Act and considering the relevant provisions of the Act of 1992, the Division Bench of this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court have categorically held that the concerned Universities constituted under the provisions of the respective University Act can be said to be Corporation and therefore Public Undertaking and therefore, with respect to the dispute between the University and the Contractor, more particularly with respect to the dispute pertaining to the Public Works Contract, Suit before the Civil Court shall be barred and the jurisdiction shall lie with the learned tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992. 5.1 Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant has heavily relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. (supra) and Sardar Patel University (supra). 5.2 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff that the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in holding that the Commercial Court shall not have any jurisdiction as the University Staff is getting salary and allowances from the State Government and therefore, the defendant-M.S. University is controlled by the State Government is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant that on the aforesaid ground the learned Commercial Court has not held the defendant University as Public Undertaking as defined under the Act of 1992. It is submitted that considering the decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University (supra) and decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. (supra), the defendant University is considered to be Corporation and thus Public Undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1992 and only thereafter the learned Commercial court has allowed the application in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (supra), the defendant University is considered to be Corporation and thus Public Undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1992 and only thereafter the learned Commercial court has allowed the application in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5.3 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the original plaintiff that the learned Commercial Court instead of rejecting the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff to present it before the appropriate tribunal, in case the learned Commercial Court was of the opinion that the Civil Court/Commercial Court has no jurisdiction is concerned, it is submitted by Mr. Jayraj Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant that once it is held the Suit before the Commercial Court is barred by the Act of 1992 and the Commercial Court has exercised the jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the learned Commercial Court has rightly rejected the plaint. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 6.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that by the impugned order the learned Commercial Court has rejected the plaint in exercise of the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that in view of the provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Act, 1992, Suit Civil Court/ Commercial Court shall be barred to adjudicate the dispute between the parties arising out of the public works contract. As such, the issue whether the original defendant - M.S. University can be said to be Public Undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1992 is already concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) and by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University (supra). As such, the issue whether the original defendant - M.S. University can be said to be Public Undertaking as defined under the provisions of the Act of 1992 is already concluded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gujarat Agricultural University (supra) and by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University (supra). In the case of Gujarat Agricultural University, while considering the similar provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural University Act, the Division Bench of this Court has specifically observed and held that the Gujarat Agricultural University can be said to be/called as Corporation aggregate and therefore, will be deemed to be Public Undertaking writhing the meaning of section 2(i)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the dispute arising out of the Public Works Contract between the Gujarat Agricultural University and the Contractor shall have to be decided by the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1992. 6.2 Similar view has been taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University (supra). 6.3 Under the circumstances, as such, it cannot be said that the learned Commercial Court has committed any error in holding that for the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant University arising out of the Public Works Contract, Suit before Civil Court/Commercial Court shall be barred and the suit before the Commercial Court shall not be maintainable and only the learned tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Act of 1992 shall have jurisdiction. 6.4 Now, so far as the submission made by Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the original plaintiff that the learned Commercial Court has materially erred in observing that as Pay and Allowances are paid by the State Government, defendant - M.S. University can be said to be under the Control of the State Government and reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Centre for PIL and another (supra) is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such the learned Commercial Court has not held solely relying upon the aforesaid facts. But considering the provisions of the M.S. University Act under which the defendant M.S. University is constituted and established and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. But considering the provisions of the M.S. University Act under which the defendant M.S. University is constituted and established and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sorathia Velji Ratna & Co. (supra) and decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Sardar Patel University (supra), the learned Commercial Court has held the defendant - M.S. University as Public Undertaking as defined by the Act of 1992 and consequently has held that the Suit before the Civil Court/Commercial Court shall be barred to adjudicate the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant University arising out of the Public Works Contract. 6.5 Now, so far as the submission made by Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff that if the learned Commercial Court was of the opinion that the Civil Court/Commercial Court shall not have any jurisdiction, in that case, the learned Commercial Court ought to have returned the plaint to the plaintiff to present it before the appropriate tribunal instead of rejecting the plaint, is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Commercial Court has exercised the powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure while passing the impugned order and not under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Considering the relevant provisions of the Act of 1992, the Commercial Court has held that the Suit before the Civil Court is barred and therefore, the Suit before the Civil Court/Commercial Court can be said to be barred by law and therefore, in exercise of the power conferred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Commercial Court has rightly rejected the plaint. 6.6 At this stage, Mr. Ansin Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - original plaintiff has submitted that if now the plaintiff files an application before the learned tribunal it might become time-barred and therefore, he has requested to make suitable observation that if the plaintiff files an application before the learned tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, in that case, the learned tribunal to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits, however, without raising the issue with respect to limitation. 6.7. Mr. 6.7. Mr. Chauhan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original defendant University has stated at the bar that he has no objection if suitable observations are made. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Commercial Court. Under the circumstances, present appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, while disposing of the present appeal it is observed that if the appellant herein- original plaintiff files an appropriate application before the learned tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992 i.e. Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today, the same may be decided by the learned tribunal in accordance with law and on merits, however, without raising the issue with respect to limitation. 8. With this present appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.