Telangana High Court
Ahmed Nawaz Alladin vs M/S. Hyderabad Industries Limited on 7 January, 2022
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
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 2 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 After introduction of Commercial Courts, the present suit is withdrawn from the III Additional Chief Judge and made over to XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, along with connected suit O.S.No.22 of 2016.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 3 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