Devender Kumar vs Santosh Kumar Agarwal
2026 Latest Caselaw 190 Tel

Telangana High Court

Devender Kumar vs Santosh Kumar Agarwal on 31 March, 2026

                                      1




        HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                    AT HYDERABAD

     THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
                         AND
       THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

             CMA NOs.121, 122 AND 123 OF 2026


                           DATE: 31.03.2026

BETWEEN:

CMA NOs.121, 122 AND 123 OF 2026


Devender Kumar.
                                                                    ...Appellant

                                    AND


Santosh Kumar Agarwal and Nine Others.

                                                             ...Respondents


Mr. R A Achuthanand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.



COMMON JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The present Appeals have been filed challenging the

docket orders dated 11.02.2026 passed in C.C.SR.Nos.4873 of

2025, 4878 of 2026 and 4869 of 2025 by the learned

Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial

and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad ('Commercial Court') returning the Plaint filed by

the appellant herein on the grounds that there was no specific

mention of the words 'trade' or 'commerce' in the pleadings

and that the Plaint does not disclose whether the agreement

between the parties is a commercial agreement dealing with a

commercial transaction. The plaintiff failed to file a copy of

the lease agreement, which is necessary to determine the

nature and intended use of the immovable property. To

qualify as a commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c) of The

Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the immovable property must

be 'actually used exclusively in trade or commerce. The Court

found the averment in the Plaint is insufficient to meet this

element. The Court emphasised that the agreement is needed

to prove the immovable property was being and for trade or

commerce as on the date of the agreement.

2. The appellant herein filed three Suits against the

respondents/defendants for eviction on the ground that the

Suit premises is a shop involving 'trade' and 'commerce',

which hence comes within the definition of a commercial

dispute under section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act which pertain

to the agreements relating to immovable property used

exclusively in trade or commerce.

3. We have perused the relevant paragraphs of the Plaint as

pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

4. We are of the view that, considering the admitted fact of

the appellant that the premises is a shop used for the

purposes of trade and commerce, the appellant should be

given an opportunity to amend the Plaint, if required and place

further documents before the Commercial Court for the

purpose of bringing the dispute under the definition of a

commercial dispute under section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act.

5. We make it clear that the Trial Court shall exercise its

independent assessment as to whether the Suit indeed falls

under the definition of a commercial Suit and involves a

dispute falling under any of the specified categories under

section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act.

6. CMA Nos.121, 122 and 123 of 2026, along with all

connected applications, are accordingly disposed of by setting

aside the impugned docket orders dated 11.02.2026 and

giving the appellant an opportunity to file an appropriate

application before the Commercial Court on or before

10.04.2026, as prayed for. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J Date: 31.03.2026 NDS