JUDGMENT : Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 2. Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in COS No. 1 of 2017 on the file of the Commercial Court-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore. The reliefs sought in the said suit are as follows: "(A) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass decree directing the impugned Letter Nos. SE/SPC/NLR/DB/JTO.5/1187M and SE/SPC/NLR/DB/JTO.5/1188M, dated 10.12.2007 issued by the 2nd defendant, as arbitrary, unreasonable and wrongful, amounting to breach of contract committed by the defendant No. 2; and also consequential decree of Permanent Injunction be passed against the defendants, restraining them and their Successors in Office, Authorized Persons, etc., not to initiate any coercive steps or action in any manner in pursuance of the impugned Letter No. SE/SPC/NLR/DB/JTO.5/1188M, dated 10.12.2007 issued by the defendant No. 2. (B) That decree be passed against the defendants, directing them to pay Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Crores) towards the amount of claims settled by this Honourable Court to the plaintiff in Contract Agreement No. 12SE/2004-05 or such other amount as ascertained by this Honourable Court after adjudication of claims, for the ends of justice; (C) That to award interest @ 12% per annum on the decreetal amount of claims awarded to the plaintiff till realization; (D) That to award costs of the suit to the plaintiff; and...." The docket proceedings pertaining to the present suit show that the arguments in the said suit were heard and concluded on 3.12.2018 and the matter stood posted for pronouncement of judgment. Now, by way of the order impugned in the present revision, the learned Judge, on the ground that the jurisdiction of the commercial suits relating to S.P.S.R. Nellore District has been assigned to the Special Court at Vijayawada by virtue of G.O. Ms. No. 78, Law (L, LA & J-HOME COURTS-A) Department, dated 16.5.2019, reopened the suit and directed to transfer the same to the Special Court at Vijayawada. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, there is absolutely no necessity for transferring the suit as the suit is coming up for pronouncement of judgment. In support of his contention, he invites our attention to the proviso to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, reads as under: "15. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff, there is absolutely no necessity for transferring the suit as the suit is coming up for pronouncement of judgment. In support of his contention, he invites our attention to the proviso to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, reads as under: "15. Transfer of pending cases.-(1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division. (2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil Court in any district or area in respect of which a commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such commercial Court: Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). (3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer. (4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines or issue such further directions as many be necessary for a speedy and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance [with Order XV-A] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908): Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to such transferred suit or application and the Court may, in its discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written statement shall be filed. (5) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the Court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding." It is very much clear from a reading of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, 2015 that there is no need of transferring the suit when the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division. 4. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the learned Judge, after hearing arguments in the suit, reserved the suit for judgment on 3.12.2018. Even according to the order impugned in the present revision, on the relevant date, the case was coming up for pronouncement of judgment. It is also noted by the learned Judge in the impugned order that most of the judgment was dictated. When the matter is heard completely and reserved for judgment, having regard to the language employed in proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, 2015, the learned Judge ought not to have directed reopening and transfer of the suit to the Special Court at Vijayawada in view of G.O. Ms. No. 78, Law (L, LA & J-HOME COURTS-A) Department, dated 16.5.2019. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is allowed, setting aside the order dated 28.6.2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, in COS No. 1 of 2017, and the learned Judge is requested to proceed further with the pronouncement of the judgment by disposing of the case in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs of the revision. 6. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the revision shall stand disposed of.