AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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.
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.
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of Commercial Courts, the present suit is withdrawn from the III Additional Chief Judge and made over to XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil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.
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.
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.
Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as
to costs.