ORDER : DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J. Questioning the continuous return of the C.A.O.P. vide G.L.No.471 of 2023 in C.A.O.P.No.__of 2023, dated 27.06.2023, by the Commercial Court, Vijayawada, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the repeated returns are made by the learned trial Judge on the maintainability of the petition before the Commercial Court. Despite the matter being represented time and again the same objection is being taken by the learned Judge. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the above the AOP has not be numbered since the specified value in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short “the Act”) has been defined in Section 2 (i) of the Act as “not less than three lakhs”. He, therefore, contains that once the pecuniary value has been fixed by the Parliament in Section 2 (i) of the Act the Commercial Court, which has been constituted by G.O.Ms. No.27, dated 01.03.2017, has to entertain the dispute if the value exceeds the specified value viz., three lakh rupees. Admittedly, in this case the case value is above three lakhs and learned counsel, therefore, states that in terms of Section 6 and other sections read with Section 2(i), the Commercial Court is bound to number the AOP and hear the same. He also points out that the absence of the Notification under Section 3(1A) is not material and the High Court of Jharkhand in Daimler Financial Services India Ltd., v Vikas Kumar & Another, W.P.(C) No.3941 of 2019 has already held that the absence of a Notification is not material. 4) This Court after considering the submissions notices that it is a fact that the Parliament has enacted the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and has also modified the pecuniary value / specified value to be Rs.3,00,000/-. By an amendment (by Act 28 of 2018) the specified value has been reduced from Rupees One Crore to Rs.3,00,000/-. 5) However, it is also important to note that in Section 3 of the Act a proviso has been added, which states that even in respect of High Courts, which exercise ordinary original Civil jurisdiction, the State Government may after consultation with the High Court, constitute the Commercial Courts at a District Judge level. 5) However, it is also important to note that in Section 3 of the Act a proviso has been added, which states that even in respect of High Courts, which exercise ordinary original Civil jurisdiction, the State Government may after consultation with the High Court, constitute the Commercial Courts at a District Judge level. Further proviso in Section 3 (1) of the Act says that the State Government in such cases may specify the pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakhs and not more than pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court. Further in Section 3 (1A) of the Act, which has also been added by Act 28 of 2018, it is stated the State Government may “notwithstanding anything containing in this Act” after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakhs or higher value whole or part of the State. 6) A reading of the above would show that even though the specified value is specified in Section 2 (i) of the Act as not less than three lakhs, under Section 3 of the Act still a discretion is left to the State Government. As per proviso to Section 3 (i) of the Act the State Government by notification has to specify the pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakhs and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Courts. This proviso like all other provisos carves out an exception to the main section. Therefore, the State Government has to issue a notification fixing the value between three lakhs to the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court. This is further clarified and amplified by Section 3(1A) by Act 28 of 2018, which starts with a non-obstante clause and states that “notwithstanding anything contained in the Act” State Government may after consultation with the concerned High Court by notification specify such pecuniary value, which shall not be less than three lakhs or such higher value for the whole or any part of the State. The State Government’s jurisdiction or power in this aspect is thus spelt out at more than one place. The words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act …….” Make it clear that a further notification is needed from the State in consultation with the High Court. The State Government’s jurisdiction or power in this aspect is thus spelt out at more than one place. The words “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act …….” Make it clear that a further notification is needed from the State in consultation with the High Court. 7) Section 3 (2) of the Act gives the jurisdiction to the State Government to issue a notification specifying the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts. Accordingly G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 01.03.2017 was issued establishing the special courts for trial and disposal of the Commercial disputes, under sub Section 3(i) of the Act for exercising jurisdiction over the districts of Visakhapatnam and Krishna. 8) Therefore, on a consideration of all the above, this Court is of the opinion that until the State Government issues a notification in consultation with the High Court, the pecuniary value of three lakhs, as fixed in Section 2 (i) of the Act, will not come into operation. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the objections raised by the Commercial Judge. 9) Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10) Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.