##PAGE1##

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

2

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

3

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

4

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