Disposed

M/S Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers Th Dildar Singh v. Jagjit Singh Bagga and Others

J&K HC24 Nov 2025CM(M)/114/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 227 challenging the Principal District Judge's finding that a landlord-tenant dispute is not a commercial dispute under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. With mediation concluded and the Order 7 Rule 11 application pending, petition was disposed of with a direction that para 5's observation not influence its decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal District Judge to decide pending Order 7 Rule 11 application without considering para 5 of the order dated 03.02.2025.

M/S Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers Th Dildar Singh Vs Jagjit… — Landlord and Tenant | J&K HC (2025)

¶1

Sr.No. 30

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CM(M) No. 114/2025

¶4

Date of pronouncement: 24.11.2025. Date of uploading: 25.11.2025

¶5

M/s Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers , 29/6, Transport Nagar, Narwal, Jammu-180006. Through its proprietor Dildar Singh, Age 68 years S/o Late S. Dalip Singh R/o Jallo Chak, Jammu.

¶6

….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)

¶7

Through :- Mr. Sudesh Sharma, Advocate. V/s Jagjit Singh Bagga ….Respondent(s) S/o Late S. Uttam Singh Bagga R/o 79, Opposite PHE Office, Parade Road, Jammu.

¶8

Amnish Bharti Gupta S/o Sh. Tarsem Gupta R/o Birpur Industrial Complex, Bari Brahmna, Tehsil and District Samba.

¶9

Anil Kumar Pathania S/o Sh. Purshotam Singh Pathania R/o Bassa Waziran Tehsil Noorpur, District Kangra Himachal Pradesh.

¶10

Through :- Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate.

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MS JUSTICE MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI, JUDGE

¶12

ORDER (24.11.2025)

¶13

01. Petitioner has sought supervisory jurisdiction of this Court vested

¶14

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, thereby challenging

¶15

¶16

order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu [“Court Below”] in case titled “Jagjit Singh v. M/s Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers & Ors.”, by virtue of which the Court below has returned a finding that the suit preferred by the respondents is not covered within the definition of Commercial Dispute under Section 2(c) of Commercial Court Act, 2015 and has referred the matter for mediation, thereby virtually violating the provisions contained in Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. The petitioner herein is a sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Dildar Singh.

¶17

02. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he is only aggrieved of the finding, which has been referred at para 5 of the order dated 03.02.2025, wherein it has been observed that the dispute between two private individuals i.e., land lord and tenant is not covered within the definition of commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. However, parties have already appeared before mediator and mediation proceedings have been concluded.

¶18

03. It is further that since the petitioner has participated in the mediation proceedings and his application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is pending before the Court of learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, as such, instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable in the eyes of law, the mediation proceedings have failed and the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, has to be considered by the court.

¶19

CM(M) No. 114/2025

¶20

04. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that admittedly the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, is pending and has not been decided so far, but the observations made in para 5 of the impugned order dated 03.02.2025, can influence the order, which is to be passed in the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

¶21

05. In view of the above, instant petition is disposed of with a direction

¶22

to learned Principal District Judge, Jammu, while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, not to take into account para 5 of the order in which it has been observed as under: -

¶23

“ the premises were hired for commercial use, however, it is a dispute between two private individuals i.e. Landlord and Tenant, as such is not covered within the definition of Commercial dispute, as defined under Section 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015”

¶24

6. However, Court of learned Princial District Judge, Jammu shall be free

¶25

to pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, in accordance with law.

¶26

(MOKSHA KHAJURIA KAZMI)

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Jammu: 24.11.2025 Sushant

¶29

Whether the judgment is speaking Yes

¶30

Whether the judgment is reportable No

¶31

CM(M) No. 114/2025

M/S Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers Th Dildar Singh v. Jagjit Singh Bagga and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jammu Srinagar Cargo Movers Th Dildar Singh v. Jagjit Singh Bagga and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Ace Enterprises through Abdul Rehman Bhat Vs Shri Jagdeep Rana

Ashiq Hussain Sofi Vs Intizamia Committee Jamia Masjid Abu Baker Sidiq

J and K Bank Limited and Anr. Vs Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court and Anr.

Irfan Ahmad Teli Vs Manzoor Ahmad Wani

Juhi Majeed Vs Mohd Yasir

Muneer Ahmad Bhat Vs Yasmeena Jan and Ors.

Ghulam Mohi Ud Din Dar Vs Roomi Jan

Syed Ghulam Mohammad Geelani Vs Syed Ishrat and Ors.

Puran Singh and Others Vs Ut of J and K through the Commissioner Secretary Revenue Deptt and Others

Lal Chand Vs Member J and K Spl.Tribunal and Anr.

M/S Saroop Brick Kiln Th Bhrigu Khajuria Vs Ut of J and K Th. Commissioner Secretary Forest Ecology and Environment Deptt and Others

State of J and K Th. Commissioner/Secretary to Govt.P.W.D. and Ors. Vs Faqir Mohd. and Anr.

Varun Arora Vs Jyoti Arora and Anr.

Balwant Singh Vs Union of India Th Secretary Ministry of Railway and Others