JUDGMENT : SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Heard Shri Surya Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.10, Meerut in Original Suit No.1310 of 2024 (Karamveer Electronics Ltd. vs. Energo Import and others), whereby the application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. of the defendant no.3, CAIXA Bank, has been allowed, and the trial court has returned the plaint for presentation to the proper court by concluding that the suit is relating to commercial transactions between the parties, which is cognizable by the Commercial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submitted that the order of trial court is erroneous, since the plaintiff filed a suit for relief of mandatory injunction, which is cognizable by the civil court. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the civil court had the jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff, as such, the trial court erred in returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court. 5. With these submissions, it was prayed that the appeal be admitted for hearing and, thereafter, be decided on merits, in accordance with law. 6. The plaintiff-appellant has annexed the copy of the plaint, which discloses that the plaintiff-company is engaged in manufacturing of transformers and allied equipments in the factory at Meerut, the defendant no.1 is a Govt. of Cuba Undertaking Company created by Resolution of Ministry of Foreign Trade by Resolution No.117 dated 01.12.1977 and is authorized to deal with import of transformers for Cuba. 7. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant no.2 is the authorized Banker of defendant no.1, who had issued Letter of Credit (LOC) on behalf of defendant no.1 for purchase of goods from plaintiff and the LOCs were to be reimbursed by defendant no.3 by an internal arrangement between defendant nos. 1 to 3. 8. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he was to receive payment of goods supplied by it to defendant no.1 through defendant no. 4 and 5, which are the State Bank of India, Partapur and its Branch situated at Ganga Plaza, Meerut. 9. 1 to 3. 8. It was further averred by the plaintiff that he was to receive payment of goods supplied by it to defendant no.1 through defendant no. 4 and 5, which are the State Bank of India, Partapur and its Branch situated at Ganga Plaza, Meerut. 9. The plaintiff further averred that he entered into an agreement with defendant no.1 for supply of different types of transformers on 31.03.2020 and it was decided that the plaintiff shall be paid for supply of above transformers by L.O.C. of the Bank i.e. defendant no.3, payable at State Bank of India, Partapur. 10. It was further averred by the plaintiff that vide its Invoices dated 29.11.2020, 12.12.2020, 13.10.2021, 12.11.2021, dispatched the goods to Cuba for defendant no.1 by Ship Consignment, Invoices and Bill of loading etc. and the goods were delivered to defendant no.1 and as agreed previously, defendant no.3 issued L.O.C. and payment advice from defendant no.2 for Euro 940081.88, which is equivalent to Rs.9,11,87,942.36 paise for payment and out of the above amount, Euro 303121.71 was paid by defendant no.3 to plaintiff through State Bank of India, Partapur. 11. It was further averred by the plaintiff that subsequently no payment whatsoever was made to it in spite of repeated reminders and messages. The plaintiff further averred that under the aforesaid circumstances, as per the International Banking Laws, customs and usages, the defendant no. 2 and 3 were under an obligation to fulfil the commitment made by them to defendant no.1, inter alia to the Government of Cuba, but they have miserably failed and have not only caused irreparable loss to the plaintiff but also have caused loss to Indian Economy/Government by holding over the Foreign Exchange, which was to come to India by this deal. 12. It is the case of the plaintiff that for the goods supplied by it to defendant no.1, the Bankers of defendant no.1 i.e. defendant no.2 and 3 have failed to make payment in terms of the above LOC and an amount of Euro 636960.57 is due. The plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:- "(A) That by a decree of mandatory injunction, commanding the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to honour the LOC No. B1CC120000000521 for Balance of EURO 636960.57 equivalent to INR 61,78,120/- the LOC was issued for EURO 94008108 out of which EURO 303121 was paid in favour of plaintiff through defendant no. 4. The plaintiff claimed the following reliefs:- "(A) That by a decree of mandatory injunction, commanding the defendant nos. 1 to 3 to honour the LOC No. B1CC120000000521 for Balance of EURO 636960.57 equivalent to INR 61,78,120/- the LOC was issued for EURO 94008108 out of which EURO 303121 was paid in favour of plaintiff through defendant no. 4. (B) That by decree of the court, the court be pleased to attach the amount of defendant no. 2 lying in CBS Branch of State Bank of India, being account no._______________in Foreign Exchange, Ganga Plaza Branch of State bank of India at Meerut." Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , and hence the present suit lies before the appropriate Commercial Court and in view of Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , its jurisdiction was barred. Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only provided an alternative forum to decide suits, but it does not either bar or ousts the jurisdiction of civil court to try civil suits of the nature. 15. It was further averred that Section 11 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , specifically says that those suits of which civil court cannot take cognizance shall also be not entertained by Commercial Courts. 16. It was further averred that the present suit was for the relief of injunction, which was cognizable by civil court and was not barred. 17. The trial court by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 has allowed the defendant no.3’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. by concluding that the dispute raised by the plaintiff is a commercial dispute, which falls within the definition of Section 2 (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and according to Section 6 of that Act, in all such cases, where the jurisdiction vests with the Commercial Court, the ordinary jurisdiction of the civil court was barred. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record. 19. 18. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record. 19. Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , reads as follows: “(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of—- (i) ordinary transactions of merchants, bankers, financiers and traders such as those relating to mercantile documents, including enforcement and interpretation of such documents; (ii) export or import of merchandise or services; *** *** *** Explanation.- A commercial dispute shall not cease to be a commercial dispute merely because--- (a) it also involves action for recovery of immovable property or for realisation of monies out of immovable property given as security or involves any other relief pertaining to immovable property; (b) one of the contracting parties is the State or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or a private body carrying out public functions;” 20. Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , reads as follows: Section6: Jurisdiction of Commercial Court -The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, a commercial dispute shall be considered to arise out of the entire territory of the State over which a Commercial Court has been vested jurisdiction that, if the suit or application relating to such commercial dispute has been instituted as per the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). 21. From the perusal of the plaint, it is apparent that the plaintiff had supplied transformers to defendant no.1 and for securing its payment a Letter of Credit(LOC) of Euro 940081.88 was opened in favour of the plaintiff by defendant no.3, but since the whole payment of goods supplied by the plaintiff was not made and payment of Euro 636960.57 was outstanding against defendant no.1, as such, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for mandatory injunction for directing the Banker of defendant no.1 i.e.defendant no.2 and 3 to honour the above Letter of Credit(LOC). 22. 22. The Apex Court in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and another (2020) 15 SCC 585 , has held that 'a matter will fall under the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court or the Commercial Division of the High Court on the following factors:- (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 (1)(i) of the Act.' 23. It is apparent from the plaint that there was export of merchandise by the plaintiff, which was only partly paid by defendant No.1, the payment was secured by LOC issued by defendant No.2&3, who were the bankers of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has filed the suits for obtaining the balance payment of Euro 636960.57, by decree of mandatory injunction. In view of this, the whole dispute is a commercial dispute falling within the definition of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 . The plaintiff has claimed payment of about Rs.62 lacs from the defendant no.1 to 3, which is above the specified value of Rs.3 lacs defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 , as such, the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Section 6 , where there is a commercial dispute of a specified value, such a suit is cognizable only by the Commercial Court, and the civil court lacked jurisdiction. 25. In view of the above facts, the trial court has not committed any illegality in allowing the defendant no.3’s application under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.and returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court of jurisdiction. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal is meritless and is dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C. at the admission stage. 27. The impugned judgment and decree dated 08.07.2025 is affirmed.