JUDGMENT : Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant against the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-XIV-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, Dhanbad in Original Suit No. 25/2016, whereby the prayer of the defendant no. 1 and 3 under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed and observed that as per provisions of Rule 10A(2)(b) order VII C.P.C the plaint shall be presented before the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Deoghar. Further, the learned court below has passed following directions: - “Both the sides are directed to be present before the court of ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-1, Deoghar on 08-08-18. Both the sides are noticed accordingly as per provisions of Rule 10A (2) (c) Order VII C.P.C. The suit is accordingly directed to be returned as per provisions of Order VII Rule 10 C.P.C., it goes without saying that the plaintiff is entitled to amend the plaint as he wants before the court of learned Civil Judge Sr. Division)-1, Deoghar. Put up on 08-08-18 before the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-1, Deoghar”. Arguments of the Plaintiff/Appellant 3. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff/Appellant submits that as per the plaint (Annexure-1) , the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company and the main purpose of the plaintiff-company is to carry on business as buyers and also purchase, acquire, build, construct etc. any building or land and give it on rent etc. after demolition/ reconstruction. It is submitted that as per the plaint, in the year 2010 and 2011 the plaintiff-company had taken plots on lease at Deoghar for erecting building thereon and to let them out on rent/lease on the property described in the schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff started constructing buildings on registered lease-hold land and property and started making various types of constructions for the purposes of business transactions and setting on long term leases as per the terms of the original leases executed and registered by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff-company with respect of the lands fully described in Schedules 1 to 4 of the plaint which was the subject-matter of the suit and were referred to as suit properties. It is also submitted that the plaintiff after doing the needful started construction work and constructed basement, lower ground floor and few shops on the upper ground floor on the lease out premises and out of the constructed portion, the plaintiff has settled a few of them to various persons. Dispute arose between the parties and the suit was filed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession of the properties and also for recovery of loss and damages to the extent of Rs. 3.5 crores. 4. He further submits that upon notice issued in the suit , the defendants appeared and defendant no. 1 and 3 filed a petition under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 6 of The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts , 2015 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) Act for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the commercial dispute does not include dispute arising out of lease and that the plaint on its reading would reveal that the relief claimed by the plaintiff and the grounds set in the plaint are purely arising out of lesser-lessee relationship. The said petition was opposed by the plaintiff by filing a reply but the learned court below vide impugned order dated 04.07.2018 rejected the said petition filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of CPC. The learned counsel for the Plaintiff /Appellant submits that the learned trial court has wrongly allowed the petition filed under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C by holding that the dispute involved in the suit is not a “commercial dispute” as defined under section 2(c ) (vii) of the Act and hence not maintainable before the commercial court as the dispute is between lessor and lessee. The learned counsel submits that the Plaintiff /Appellant had a valid cause of action to file a suit before the commercial court and the dispute is a commercial dispute as defined under the Act. 5. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another) and submits that the case of the present petitioner is fully covered by the said judgment which deals with the interpretation of Section 2(1) (c ) (vii) of the Act. Arguments of the Defendants/Respondents 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants/Respondents opposes the prayer and submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by the learned court below which does not call for any interference. Findings of this court 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the plaint (Annexure-1), this Court finds that the entire dispute arises out of registered deeds of lease entered into between the parties executed in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant. The property was required for making various constructions including shops named as “SHIV TOWER” and more or less forty customers had started booking the shops. It is also the specific case of the Plaintiff/Appellant that out of constructed portion, the Plaintiff/Appellant had settled a few of them to various persons. It is also the case of the Plaintiff/Appellant that advertisement was also given in the newspaper giving the details of the various constructions including shops etc. and the booking had already started. 8. The specific case of the Plaintiff/Appellant is that they came to know that the Defendants/Respondents were creating confusion by allegedly spreading wrong, false and malicious rumors in Deoghar Town which was affecting and damaging the business and prestige of the Plaintiff/Appellant and that the Plaintiff/Appellant had invested huge amount over crores in improving the lease-hold lands in question making various constructions on the suit property. 9. It is well settled that while considering the objection to the case under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, only the averments made in the plaint are required to be examined as to whether, the case as made out in the plaint is maintainable before the court concerned. 10. Thus, the point to be determined in the present case is : - Whether, on the face of the plaint, the dispute involved is a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act so as to confer jurisdiction upon the commercial court to decide the suit? And Whether the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 11. And Whether the learned court below has rightly passed the impugned order rejecting the plaint under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure? 11. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the jurisdiction of the commercial courts with reference to the definition of “commercial dispute” as defined under Section 2 (1) (c) with particular reference to Section 2(c)(vii) of the Act which clearly provides that the disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce would be covered within the definition of “commercial dispute”. 12. At Para-30 of the aforesaid Judgment, the condition precedent for maintaining a matter before a commercial court under the aforesaid Act has been mentioned as under :- “(i) it shall be a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act; and (ii) Such commercial disputes are of a specified value as per Section 2(i) of the Act.” 13. In the present case, there is no dispute that the suit valuation is as per the requirement under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act which defines the specified value in relation to a “commercial dispute”. In the present case the suit is valued at more than 17 crores. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme court while considering the very purpose of enactment of the aforesaid Act held in para 41 as follows :- “A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the various amendments to Civil Procedure code and insertion of new rules to the Code applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that it has been enacted for the purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial disputes. A purposive interpretation of the Objects and Reasons and various amendments to Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are given a liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of Courts, viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of commercial disputes, will be defeated. If we take a closer look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons, words such as ‘early’ and ‘speedy’ have been incorporated and reiterated. If the provisions are given a liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of Courts, viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of commercial disputes, will be defeated. If we take a closer look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons, words such as ‘early’ and ‘speedy’ have been incorporated and reiterated. The object shall be fulfilled only if the provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not hampered by the usual procedural delays plaguing our traditional legal system.” 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act held at Para-42 as follows: - “42. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce” are to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast-tracking procedure discussed above.” 16. It has also been held in para-47 of the said judgment that the object and purpose of the establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court is to ensure that the cases involved in commercial disputes are disposed of expeditiously, fairly and at reasonable cost to the litigants. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the establishment of the Commercial Courts and fast tracking procedure provided under the Act, the statutory provisions of the Act and the words incorporated thereon are to be meaningfully interpreted for quick disposal of commercial litigations so as to benefit the litigants especially those who are engaged in trade and commerce which in turn will further economic growth of the country. 17. Upon perusal of the plaint (Annexure-1), this Court finds that the dispute arises out of agreements of lease which was entered into between the parties for commercial exploitation of the immoveable property and as per the plaint, the construction had already started and upon advertisement, arrangements were already entered into with third parties. 17. Upon perusal of the plaint (Annexure-1), this Court finds that the dispute arises out of agreements of lease which was entered into between the parties for commercial exploitation of the immoveable property and as per the plaint, the construction had already started and upon advertisement, arrangements were already entered into with third parties. In view of the aforesaid this court is of the considered view that as per the plaint, the present suit arises out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce and such dispute would squarely fall within the term “commercial dispute” as defined in Section 2 (1) (c ) (vii) of the Act when read in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court which has been heavily relied upon by the Plaintiff/Appellant. 18. Upon perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned court below, this court finds that the learned court below has returned the plaint on the ground that the dispute is between lessor and lessee and hence is not covered by the Act. The learned court below has relied upon the interpretation given by the Hon’ble Supreme court to the words “commerce”, “commercial” and “trading activities” in the judgment of M.P Electricity Board and others versus Shiv Narayan and another reported in (2005) 7 SCC 283 . This court finds that the term “commercial dispute” has been defined under the aforesaid Act and “the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce” are specifically covered. As already held above , upon examination of the plaint of the suit, this court finds that the dispute involved, as disclosed in the plaint is a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act when seen in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. The view taken by the learned court below is contrary to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 1311 (supra) and accordingly cannot be sustained in law. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned court below reported in (2005) 7 SCC 283 is concerned the same has no bearing in the present case as the term “commercial dispute” is specifically defined under the Act. So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned court below reported in (2005) 7 SCC 283 is concerned the same has no bearing in the present case as the term “commercial dispute” is specifically defined under the Act. The judgment reported in (2005) 7 SCC 283 has been passed in a totally different context while deciding the issue as to whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or it is a trade or business and the Hon’ble Supreme court held that the expression “commerce” or “commercial” necessarily has a concept of trading activity and legal profession is not trading activity. The law is well settled that when a term is defined in a statute the same is to be given full effect unless the context otherwise requires and in the present case there is no occasion to give and different meaning to the term “commercial dispute” other than its definition in the Act. Accordingly the judgment reported in (2005) 7 SCC 283 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case and aforesaid findings have been given in the present case as per the definition of “commercial dispute” in the Act. 19. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid findings both the points formulated in para 10 above are decided in favour of the Plaintiff/Appellant and it is held that on the face of the plaint, the dispute involved in the suit is a “commercial dispute” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act and the commercial court has the jurisdiction to decide the suit, and the learned court below has erred in law while passing the impugned order rejecting the plaint under order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 20. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed with a direction upon the learned court below to proceed further with the suit proceedings as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2016 and the parties have already appeared in the suit. 20. Consequently, the impugned order is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed with a direction upon the learned court below to proceed further with the suit proceedings as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2016 and the parties have already appeared in the suit. Let it be made clear that observations made, if any, hereinabove are only for the limited purpose of determining whether the dispute raised in the suit falls within the definition of 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and it shall not prejudice the case of the parties on merits before the Commercial Court, Dhanbad. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 22. Let this order be immediately communicated to the concerned court through FAX, e-mail. 23. Let a copy of this order be also communicated to the learned counsels for the parties through e-mail.