M/S Sri Srinivasa Construction vs D. Muralidhar Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 3278 Tel

Telangana High Court

M/S Sri Srinivasa Construction vs D. Muralidhar Rao on 21 March, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.297 of 2025

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated

22.11.2024, in I.A.No.948 of 2023 in O.S.No.575 of 2016, passed

by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court,

Khaithlapur, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard Mr. K. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners,

and Mr. D. Raghavendar Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected a

petition filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 10 (a & b) read

with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'CPC')

seeking for return of the plaint and filing the same before the

Commercial Court established by the Government.

4. The Original Suit O.S.No.575 of 2016 was filed by respondent

No.1 herein seeking a decree of declaration, along with injunction

and recovery of arrears of rent. The said Suit was filed as early as in

the year 2016. The Suit schedule property is one which is located at

Plot No.7 in Survey No.64 admeasuring 1136.02 square yards or

950 square meters in Sector II, HUDA Techno Enclave at Madhapur

Village, Ranga Reddy District consisting of Cellar + Ground + five

upper floors admeasuring 34,000 square feet. The respondents

herein are the absolute owners and possessors of the entire

aforesaid Suit schedule property.

5. A Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney

was entered into between the petitioners and respondents on

17.08.2017. It was agreed that the property would be developed

and the income generated would be shared at the rate of 52.5% to

the owners i.e. respondents and 47.5% with the developer i.e. the

petitioners. A modified development agreement was yet again

entered into between the parties on 28.06.2019. It was agreed that

the constructed portion of the building shall be used for commercial

purpose. After the development of the commercial complex, the

defendant No.3 (respondent No.2 before the Trial Court) after

negotiating with the respondents entered into the Suit schedule

property with an intention to carry forward the health care

company, which they operate in the name of M/s. Suyosha Health

Care Pvt. Ltd.

6. After defendant No.3 had occupied the said constructed

portion, as there was a default on his part in paying the rent, in

spite of efforts being made between the respondents and the

petitioners on the aspect of default in payment of rent, and as

things did not work out, it was then that the petitioners filed the

present Suit in the year 2016. Pending consideration before the Trial

Court, the petitioners after a considerable long period of time i.e. in

the year 2023 filed I.A.No.948 of 2023 as a preliminary objection

under Order VII Rule 10 (a & b) read with Section 151 of CPC for

returning the plaint and to present it before the appropriate

Commercial Court having jurisdiction.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was

that in terms of the amended provisions of the Commercial Court

Act from 2018 onwards the monetary limit i.e. the 'Specified Value'

in respect of referring the matter to the Commercial Court has been

reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- which earlier was Rs.1,00,00,000/-, and in

the process, the present Suit is also one which should be seized by

the Commercial Court. Therefore, the instant Suit before the Trial

Court would not be sustainable. It was further contended that the

dispute in the instant case also squarely falls under the purview of

definition of 'commercial dispute' in terms of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of

the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his

contentions relied upon the decisions in Ambalal Sarabhai

Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infrastructure LLP and Another 1,

Life Shine Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Alety Jeevan Reddy

and Ors 2, and Namita Gupta vs. Suraj Holdings Limited 3 to

substantiate that the matter is one which needs to be seized by the

Commercial Courts established in the District and not a regular Suit.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel or the respondents vehemently

opposed the Revision Petition on the ground that the petition under

Order VII Rule 10 (a & b) read with Section 151 of CPC has been

filed by the petitioners strategically at this belated stage with an

intention of killing time.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a case

where the Suit was filed in the year 2016 and more than nine years

have lapsed, the proceedings have not progressed substantially, and

(2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 585

2023 LawSuit(TS) 492

2024 LawSuit(Del) 56

in the process the plaintiffs have been put to huge loss and have

also been forced to undergo much strain and anxiety.

11. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the

petitioners herein as also the defendant No.3 in the Original Suit are

hand in glove and have acted in a manner prejudicially without any

justifiable reasons. Accordingly, the petitioners and defendant No.3

have been conniving together by moving some I.As. or the other

and have not permitted the Suit to progress.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a recent

decision of this High Court in the case of M/s. Satyam Process

Pvt. Ltd. vs. Purushottam Modani 4 wherein according to the

respondents under similar circumstances this High Court has

reached to the conclusion that since the State Government in

consultation with the High Court having not notified the Specified

Value after the amendment made in the Central Act w.e.f.

03.05.2018, for all practical purposes the jurisdiction of the

Commercial Court until further amendment is brought would be

Rs.1,00,00,000/- only and it is this proposition of law that the Trial

Order dated 22.01.2024 in C.R.P.No.44 of 2023

Court has also taken note while rejecting the petition filed by the

petitioners herein.

13. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Trial

Court cannot be found fault with, in the said circumstances for

having taken such a stand and the Revision Petition therefore

deserves to be rejected. However, the learned counsel made a

request to the Bench that whatever be the outcome and whichever

the Court the High Court finds to have the jurisdiction, let the

concerned Court be directed to expedite the proceedings in the

factual matrix of the case.

14. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the question

of law that requires consideration is 'whether in the light of the

amended provision of the Commercial Courts Act w.e.f. 03.05.2018

whether a pecuniary jurisdiction for a Commercial Court in the State

of Telangana would continue to be Rs.1,00,00,000/- in terms of the

notification under the pre-amended provision of law or whether it

has to be Rs.3,00,000/- in terms of the amended provision so far as

the Specified Value under Section 2(1)(i)'?

15. For better understanding of the dispute, it would be relevant at

this juncture to take note of the un-amended provisions of the

Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The relevant portion required for

consideration are the definition as is provided of 'commercial

dispute' under Section 2(1)(c), of which also the material clause

involved is Sub-Clause (vii) of Clause (c) which reads as under:

"2. Definitions. -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

..... .... ..

(c) "commercial dispute" means a dispute arising out of--

.... .... ..

(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;"

16. So also the definition of 'specific value' as is defined under

Section 2(1)(i) which reads as under:

"2. Definitions. -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

..... .... ..

(i) "Specified Value", in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject-matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with section 12 which shall not be less than one crore rupees or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government."

17. Section 3 also lays down the constitution of the Commercial

Courts within the State, which reads thus:

"3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.- (1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at

District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:

Provided that no Commercial Court shall be constituted for the territory over which the High Court has ordinary original civil jurisdiction.

(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.

(3) The State Government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or Judges, of a Commercial Court, from amongst the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the State."

18. Another aspect of law which needs to be considered is the

provision of Section 12 dealing with 'Specified Value' and Section 15

dealing with 'transfer of pending Suits'. For ready reference, Section

12 & Section 15 are being reproduced hereunder:

"Section 12: Determination of Specified Value.-(1) The Specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shall be determined in the following manner:-

(a) where the relief sought in a suit or application is for recovery of money, the money sought to be recovered in the suit or application inclusive of interest, if any, computed up to the date of filing of the suit or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;

(b) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to movable property or to a right therein, the market value of the movable property as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining such Specified Value;

(c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the immovable property, as on the date of filing of the suit,

appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value; 1[and]

(d) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to any other intangible right, the market value of the said rights as estimated by the plaintiff shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value; and

(e) where the counter-claim is raised in any suit, appeal or application, the value of the subject matter of the commercial dispute in such counter-claim as on the date of the counter-claim shall be taken into account.

(2) The aggregate value of the claim and counterclaim, if any as set out in the statement of claim and the counterclaim, if any, in an arbitration of a commercial dispute shall be the basis for determining whether such arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a Commercial Division, Commercial Appellate Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be.

(3) No appeal or civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as the case may be, shall lie from an order of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court finding that it has jurisdiction to hear a commercial dispute under this Act."

15. Transfer of pending cases.-(1) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division.

(2) All suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a Specified Value pending in any civil court in any district or area in respect of which a Commercial Court has been constituted, shall be transferred to such Commercial Court:

Provided that no suit or application where the final judgment has been reserved by the Court prior to the constitution of the Commercial Division or the Commercial Court shall be transferred either under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2).

(3) Where any suit or application, including an application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of Specified Value shall stand transferred to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall apply to those procedures that were not complete at the time of transfer.

(4) The Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, may hold case management hearings in respect of such transferred suit or application in order to prescribe new timelines or issue such further directions as may be necessary for a speedy and efficacious disposal of such suit or application in accordance 1[with Order XV-A] of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908):

Provided that the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall not apply to such transferred suit or application and the court may, in its discretion, prescribe a new time period within which the written statement shall be filed.

(5) In the event that such suit or application is not transferred in the manner specified in sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court may, on the application of any of the parties to the suit, withdraw such suit or application from the court before which it is pending and transfer the same for trial or disposal to the Commercial Division or Commercial Court, as the case may be, having territorial jurisdiction over such suit, and such order of transfer shall be final and binding."

A plain reading of Section 12 clearly gives an indication of the

said provision providing the method and guidelines for determining

the Specified Value involved in the commercial dispute. The

provision of law does not prescribe a minimum Specified Value, or

for that matter the maximum Specified Value. The Section outlines

the procedure to be followed for determining the value of a suit

based on its nature. Likewise, Section 15 is a crucial provision that

lays down the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts, specifying the

appropriate court for filing commercial disputes.

19. Admittedly, when the Suit was filed it was the un-amended

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 which was in force. However, the Act

itself was substantially amended w.e.f. 03.05.2018 and it was

known as Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial

Appellate Division of High Courts (Amendment) Act, 2018. Some of

the amendments that have been brought into by way of amendment

of 2018 is the 'Specified Value' in Section 2(1)(i) which was

amended as under:

"for the words "which shall not be less than one crore rupees, the words "which shall not be less than three lakh rupees" shall be substituted."

20. Likewise, so far as Section 3, the constitution of the

Commercial Court is concerned the following amendments in Sub-

Section (1) of Section 3 whereby two provisos were substituted for

the existing proviso clause. It reads as under:

"Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:

Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary."

21. So also there was further additional Sub-Section incorporated

as Section (1A) after Sub-Section (1) which also reads as under:

"(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with concerned High Court, by notification, specify, such pecuniary value which shall not be less than thrce lakh rupees or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary."

22. In addition, the amendment was brought to Sub-Section (3)

wherein in the un-amended Sub-Section (3) the word 'shall' has

been substituted with 'may' and in Sub-Section (3) for the words in

the un-amended portion i.e. the Commercial Court Act 'from

amongst the cadre of Higher Judicial Service in the State' was

amended to be substituted and read as thus:

"Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a court below the level of a District Judge."

23. The aforesaid amendment in the said Commercial Courts Act

came into w.e.f. 03.05.2028. The effect of the aforesaid amendment

to Section 2(1)(i) deals with the definition of 'Specified Value' and

where it has been held that all matters where the value in relation

to the commercial dispute is Rs.3,00,000/- and above would be one

which would be heard by the Commercial Courts. The limit of

Rs.3,00,000/- is substituted with the earlier limit of

Rs.1,00,00,000/-. As a consequence of the said amendment w.e.f.

03.05.2018, in the entire country where the Commercial Courts Act

is applicable, the value in relation to the commercial dispute to

decide whether it has to be heard by the Commercial Court or not,

stands replaced with the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in place of

Rs.1,00,00,000/- and the State of Telangana is no exception to this.

24. Hence, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the

conclusion that beyond 03.05.2018 every Suit which falls within the

purview of a commercial dispute and the value of the dispute is

more than Rs.3,00,000/- has to be transferred to the Commercial

Court under Section 15. The contention of the learned counsel for

the respondents / plaintiffs that a special notification in this regard

by the State in consultation with the High Court is separately

required is not tenable, as clause(i) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 2

does not require a further notification by the Government in

consultation with the High Court for making the said amended

provision to be applicable in the States. The said contention so far

as a separate notification by the State Government in consultation

with the High Court is one which is required under Section 3. The

amended Section 3 reads as under:

"3. Constitution of Commercial Courts.-(1) The State Government, may after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute such number of Commercial Courts at

District level, as it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on those Courts under this Act:

[Provided that with respect to the High Courts having ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, after consultation with the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute Commercial Courts at the District Judge level:

Provided further that with respect to a territory over which the High Courts have ordinary original civil jurisdiction, the State Government may, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupees and not more than the pecuniary jurisdiction exercisable by the District Courts, as it may consider necessary.]

[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the State Government may, after consultation with concerned High Court, by notification, specify such pecuniary value which shall not be less than three lakh rupess or such higher value, for whole or part of the State, as it may consider necessary.]

(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the concerned High Court specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Commercial Court shall extend and may, from time to time, increase, reduce or alter such limits.

(3) The [State Government may], with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court appoint one or more persons having experience in dealing with commercial disputes to be the Judge or Judges, of a [Commercial Court either at the level of District Judge or a Court below the level of a District Judge.]"

25. Chapter 2 of aforesaid amended Section 3 deals specifically so

far as constitution or establishment of Commercial Courts within the

State and the notification that is required is for the establishment of

a Commercial Court within the State and also in deciding to

constitute such number of Commercial Courts at the District level as

it may deem necessary for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction

and powers conferred on the Commercial Courts. The notification of

the Government in consultation with the High Court is also required

to decide the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commercial Courts if

there are more than one in a District or in a State.

26. In order to better understand the same, what is necessary to

be appreciated is that so far as the Specified Value in respect of the

value involved in a Suit which is otherwise commercial dispute, has

been brought down from Rs.1,00,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. In the

process, if in a given District the number of Commercial Courts

happen to be more than one, in the said circumstances a notification

is required deciding pecuniary jurisdiction in respect of each such

Court. Such an issuance of notification is not contemplated under

Section 2(1)(i) for variance to be brought to the specific value of

Rs.3,00,000/- by notification by any of the State Governments. The

issuance of notification by the Government is strictly required under

Section 3 for establishment of Commercial Courts and for deciding

pecuniary value of each of the Courts so established in a District and

also where the High Courts have original civil jurisdiction to decide

the pecuniary value of original Suits filed in the High Courts and the

Specified Value of Suits which have to be filed at the District Courts.

27. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents /

plaintiffs so far as requirement of a special notification to decide

whether 'Specified Value' can be enhanced by the State Government

contrary to the amendment brought in to the Commercial Courts Act

in the year 2018, particularly under Section 2(1)(i); even otherwise

plain reading of the provisos to Section 2 and Section 3 would also

clearly show that any notification that has to be issued must be for

a value of more than Rs.3,00,000/-, which in other words means

that anything above Rs.3,00,000/- and is a commercial dispute

under the definition of Section 2(1)(c) the matter is one which has

to be dealt with or referred to the concerned Commercial Court.

With all due respect, this Court would like to defer with the view

taken by a Co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of M/s.

Satyam Process Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

28. Undoubtedly, in the instant case, the construction raised by

the respondents through the petitioners was for commercial

purpose. The fact that it was for commercial purpose also stands

proved and established from the fact that it has been given for

commercial use and a hospital is being run by defendant No.3. In

the said circumstances, the dispute automatically becomes a

commercial dispute under Sub-Clause (vii) of Section (1)(c).

29. In the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs.

K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

had an occasion of dealing with the definition of Section 2(1)(c) in

respect of an agreement relating to an immovable property. In

paragraph Nos.36 and 37 of the said judgment, it has been held as

under:

"36........A purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and various amendments to the 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. 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.

37. 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

(2020) 15 Supreme Court Cases 585

"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."

30. A dispute of similar nature has come up before this High Court

in the case of Life Shine Medical Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra),

wherein in paragraph Nos.9 to 11, it has been held as under:

"9. In the facts at hand admittedly the petitioner is in the business of healthcare activities and had established a hospital in the name of 'Tulasi Hospital' in the suit scheduled property. When a purposive interpretation is given, by taking into consideration the business of the petitioner, their act in establishing 'Tulasi Hospital' and then leasing out the subject premises to run a hospital, in the view of this Court is an act done in the regular course of the petitioner's business. Thus, the lease agreement in question relates to an immovable property which is used exclusively for trade or commerce. Further, although the respondent has failed to come forward to register the written lease agreement, the petitioner herein has agreed to let out the subject premises by way of an oral lease on monthly basis, therefore he cannot now contend that there was no valid lease deed between the parties.

10. In terms of the explanation to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 2015, a commercial dispute does not cease to be so, merely because it 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. Thus, so long as the disputes arise out of a property which is being used in trade or business, the dispute remains commercial. In the present case the petitioner claims to have cleared the debts of the respondents herein, such payments majorly relate to payment of salaries of staff members, Dialysis Payment, Pharmacy balances, Ambulance services etc., These payments admittedly relate to the hospital leased to the respondents, which is an immovable property exclusively used in trade or commerce.

11. Further the act of the petitioner in paying the debts of the respondents in relation to hospital equipment and machinery,

indicates that such payment was made to avoid attachment of said equipment which would in-turn affect the running of the hospital. Thus, the contention that the relief of recovery of money paid towards the respondents debts is not a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act, 2015 does not find force with this Court, as the payment made by the petitioner herein is squarely covered by the explanation to Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, 2015. Therefore, in the view of this Court the disputes in the present case are commercial in nature. The observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Blue Nile Developers Private Limited Vs. Movva Chandra Sekhar and Ors 6, while discussing the definition of 'commercial dispute' are relevant as under:

'20. Hence from the above, it is clear that the "legislature"

has included the various types of commercial transactions to bring under the fold of "commercial dispute" in case of any dispute arises from any of those transactions. On a careful reading of the above said provision of the Act, it is obvious that the legislature has taken due care while incorporating the above said clauses from (i) to (xxii) in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act by avoiding the repetition of words and sentences without effecting the full fledged meaning of the same even on expansion of the said each clause. Therefore, either giving any restrictive meaning or reading of a clause in isolation and expansion of one word only in the said clause would hamper and frustrate the meaningful definition of the said clause on it's expansion by abrogating certain category of transactions from the purview of the benefit of the above said Act which is not otherwise the intendment of the legislature in bringing out the said enactment.'"

31. In the given factual circumstances of the case and the

amended provision of the Commercial Courts Act, this Court is of

the firm view that the decision taken by the Trial Court is not

proper, legal and sustainable, and the same deserves to be and is

2021 SCC OnLine AP 3964

accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed.

As a consequence, this Court is inclined to allow I.A.No.948 of 2023

filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 10 (a & b) read with

Section 151 of CPC. However, considering the fact that instant is a

Revision Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article

227, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the Suit is of

the year 2016 and substantial pleadings have all been brought on

record, it would be better if the entire Suit as it is, instead of

returning it back to the respondents for filing it before the

appropriate Court under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act,

the Suit be transferred to the Commercial Court having jurisdiction

in the Ranga Reddy District. It is further ordered that once when the

file gets transferred to the concerned Commercial Court Ranga

Reddy District, the said Commercial Court shall proceed from the

stage it is now fixed before the Trial Court before filing of

I.A.No.948 of 2023 by the petitioners herein. Further, also

considering the fact that the Suit is one which was filed in the year

2016, and as such more than nine years have lapsed, the concerned

Commercial Court where the Suit would get transferred is directed

to ensure that the Suit is taken up on priority basis as is agreed

upon by the learned counsel appearing on either side, and ensure

that the same is concluded at the earliest in accordance with law

without granting any unnecessary prolonged adjournments.

32. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand

closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_______________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

Date: 21.03.2025 GSD