Ahmed Nawaz Alladin vs M/S. Hyderabad Industries ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 95 Tel

  HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                         AND
      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                           C.M.A.No.650 of 2019

JUDGMENT:      (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


      The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by

the orders dt.08-04-2019 passed in I.A.S.R.No.1332 of 2019 in

C.O.S.No.225      of    2017       of    the     Commercial       Court-cum-XXIV

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.


      2. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the

appellant is the 3rd defendant in C.O.S.No.225 of 2017 and the

appellant has filed I.A.S.R.No.1332 of 2019 contending that the 1st

respondent/plaintiff has filed the C.O.S.No.225 of 2017 against the

appellant and the dispute between the appellant and the 1st

respondent/plaintiff is not a commercial dispute and the appellant

has filed an application not to entertain the plaint in C.O.S.No.225

of 2017 filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff as the dispute between

the parties is not a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2

(1) (c) (i) to (xxii) of the Commercial Disputes Act, 2015.

3. It has been contended by the appellant that the 1st

respondent/plaintiff has filed suit for declaration and perpetual

injunction against the defendants to declare the plaintiff as the

owner and possessor of Schedule A, B and C properties. Originally

suit was filed on the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein filed Transfer Petition in

O.P.No.156 of 2013 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, under Section 24 CPC to transfer O.S.No.2071 of 2011

filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff against the 3rd defendant on

the file of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

where O.S.No.393 of 2011 is pending. The O.P. No.156 of 2013

was allowed. After introduction of Commercial Courts, the present

suit is withdrawn from the III Additional Chief Judge and made

over to XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

along with connected suit O.S.No.22 of 2016.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further

contended that when it is not a commercial dispute between the

appellant and the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the Commercial Court

ought not to have entertained the case filed by the 1st

respondent/plaintiff and allowed the present petition in

I.A.S.R.No.1332 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.225 of 2017. Therefore, the

learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appropriate

orders be passed in the appeal and reject the plaint filed by the 1st

respondent/plaintiff against the appellant.

5. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by the counsel appearing for both sides, is of the considered

view that the commercial suit filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff

i.e. C.O.S.No.225 of 2007 is not claiming any relief against

defendant Nos.2 to 4 including defendant No.3 who is non other

than the appellant herein and the 1st respondent/plaintiff had

specifically stated in the commercial suit that the defendant Nos.2

to 4 have been arrayed as proforma defendants and the Court

below has rightly rejected the I.A.S.R.No.1332 of 2019 in

C.O.S.No.225 of 2017 vide orders dt.08-04-2019 by observing that

the connected O.S.No.393 of 2011 was transferred to Commercial

Court making it clear that it is a commercial dispute and the

appellant has not challenged the connected O.S.No.393 of 2011

which is being tried by Commercial Court and therefore the

appellant has no locus to contend that there is no commercial

dispute between him and the 1st respondent/plaintiff as the 1st

respondent/plaintiff is not claiming any relief against the

appellant/3rd defendant who are added as proforma parties. As

no relief is claimed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff against the

appellant, the present C.M.A. is not maintainable. Hence, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed

by the Court below.

6. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 07.01.2022 kvr