1. Appeals against Commercial Court order returning plaints for eviction of shop for not specifying trade or commerce under Section 2(1)(c), Commercial Courts Act 2015. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 8938
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Devender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Santosh Kumar Agarwal – Respondent
CMA NOs.121, 122 AND 123 OF 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R A Achuthanand
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R A Achuthanand
A party should be given an opportunity to amend a plaint and produce documents to demonstrate that a dispute over immovable property relates to 'trade or commerce' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, rather than having the plaint returned summarily.
Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Commercial Dispute - Immovable Property - For a dispute relating to immovable property to qualify as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c), the property must be used exclusively in trade or commerce. Where the appellant asserts that the premises is a shop used for such purposes, the appellant should be granted an opportunity to amend the plaint and produce documents to substantiate the nature of the dispute. (Para 4)
(B) Procedural Fairness - Return of Plaint - A plaint should not be returned summarily if the party can bring the dispute within the statutory definition through amendment and production of evidence, subject to the Trial Court's independent assessment of the nature of the suit. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the Plaint should be returned for failing to explicitly use the words 'trade' or 'commerce' or whether the appellant should be allowed to amend the Plaint to establish the commercial nature of the dispute.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
-
property law
-
lease and tenancy
- eviction suits (Para 2)
-
lease and tenancy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued premises was a shop used for trade and commerce; respondents did not make submissions recorded. (Para 3 )
3. Court found appellant should be given opportunity to amend plaint and place documents to show commercial dispute. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. A court must independently assess if a suit qualifies as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015. (Para 5 )
5. Appeals disposed of by setting aside impugned docket orders and granting appellant time to file application. (Para 6 )
6. What is required to qualify a dispute as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
The pleadings must specifically aver that the immovable property was actually used exclusively in trade or commerce, and a copy of the lease agreement may be necessary. (Para 1 )
7. Can a plaintiff be given an opportunity to amend a plaint to bring a suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
Yes, if the admitted facts suggest the suit may involve a commercial dispute, the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to amend the plaint and place further documents. (Para 4 )
8. What is the trial court's role in determining whether a suit is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
The trial court must exercise its independent assessment to determine if the suit falls under the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act. (Para 5 )
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.
