Allowed

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others v. Y Naga Satish and 2 Others

Telangana HC26 Sept 2022TRCMP/82/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court transferred Civil Misc. Petition No.82 of 2022. It ordered the withdrawal and transfer of OS No.190 of 2015 from Secunderabad to the Commercial Court at Hyderabad to ensure joint trial with OS No.10 of 2021, preventing conflicting judgments arising from the same lease agreement.

What did the court decide?

OS No.190 of 2015 is ordered to be withdrawn from Secunderabad and transferred to the Principal Commercial Court at Hyderabad to be tried jointly with OS No.10 of 2021.

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others Vs Y Naga Satish and 2… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 82 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. Dundoo Vikas S/o Late Dundoo Vijaya Kumar, Aged 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 306, Anand Nilayam,7-1-80, Dr. V.Annadorai Chowdary Street, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500016

¶9

Mr. DundooAkhil, S/o Late DundooVijaya Kumar, Aged 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o Flat No. 306, Anand Nilayam,7-1-80, Dr. VAnnadorai Chowdary Street, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 50001 6

¶10

3 Mrs. Dundoo Aruna Kumari, Wo Late DundooVijaya Kumar, Aged 62 years, Occ.. Business, R/o Flat No. 306, Anand Nilayam, 7-1 -80, Dr. V.Annadorai Chowdary Street, Ameerpet, Hyderabad 500016

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

Y Naga Satish S/o Y Jitendrudu, Age 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.C102, Fortune Enclave, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Road No 12, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana

¶14

Smt Y. Rupavalli Wo Y. Naga Satish, Age 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No.C-l02, Fortune Enclave, Sri Ram Nagar Colony, Banjara Hills, Road No.12, Hyderabad-500034, Telangana

¶15

J.C. Brothers Retail Pvt Ltd., Clo 12-7-20165, Railway Goods Shed Opposite Eenadu Printing Press, Moosapet, Hyderabad-l8 Rep by is Managing Director Marri Janardhan Reddy S/o. M. Jangi Reddy

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 of the C.P.C. Praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed there with, the High Court may be^pleased to withdrawal of O.S.No.190 of 2015 pending on the file of lAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad and transfer to the Court of Commercial Court cum XXIV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with O.S.No.10 of 2021 and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to stay^all further proceedings in O.S.No.190 of 2015^pending on the file of^{I Additional Chief} Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad^pending disposal of this^Transfer CMP and be pleased to pass such other order or^{orders as Hon'ble Court} deems^fit

¶20

This petition coming on for hearing upon^perusing the^petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon^hearrngthe arguments of Sri SUNIL^B. GANU, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri AADESH VARIVIA, Advocate for the respondent

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE S 1] ,IIJSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY Tr.C.M.P.No.82 of 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The petiti, )nr-rs havr' filed this Transfer Civil Miscellaleous F :tit ion under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19)8 (for short 'C.P.C.) with a prayer for withdrawal c,f O[ Nr,. 190 ol 20 15 pending on the file of the learned I Addit on rl Chief Jr-rdge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad arrcl c) transl,-rr the same to the Commercial Court at City Ci' il Oourt, Hlderabad to be tried along with COS No.10 of 2O21 pending on rhe file of that Court.

¶26

The pctitioners have filecl OS No.190 of 2015 before the I Additioral Chief ,ludge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad agai^-rst the r-espondents 1 & 2 for recovery of money. In fa :t, -he petitioner-s and respondents entered into a registe ecl sa,1e deed dated 03.03.2008, vide document No.3 I1 of 2008 relating to 65oh share of the petitioners in he premisc's bearing Nos.3- 1-7, 8 & 9 situated at R.P. Rorrd, Secultderabad. The respondents 1 & 2 have sper:ific; 111 agreed for pa_r,ment of service tax along with monthl-v r( nts, but the.y failed to do the same, thereby

¶27

Page 2 of 7

¶28

AVRJ TT.CMP No.82 of 2022

¶29

the petitioners have got issued a legal nol,ice and filed OS No. 190 of 20 1 5 for a direction against the respondents 1 & 2 for paynient of service tax. Accordingly, the suit in OS No.190 of 2015 is pending before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civii Court at Secunderabad and it is being posted for cross-examination of PW. 1.

¶30

The petitioners have also filed another suit COS No.10 of 2021 on the file of the Commercial Court at City Civil Court, H,yderabad, for eviction and recovery of arrears of rents. It is based on the lease deed dated 03.03.2008 executed between the parties on terminating the tenancy as per the notice dated 12.08.2020. Both the suits are arising out of lease deed dated 03.03.20O8 only between the same parties, to avoid conflicting judgments it is just and essential to u'ithdraw OS No.190 of 2015 pending on the file ol the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad and to transfer the same to the Judge, Commercial Court at Hyderabad, wherein COS No.10 of 2O2l is pending.

¶31

¶32

Page 3 of 7

¶33

AVRJ TT.CMP No.82 oi 2022

¶34

The responderLts I & 2 have filed a detailed counter denying the petit ror averments. It is stated in the counter that OS No.19( o'20 15 pending on the {ile of the I Additional Chief Jurlge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad is only for recover ot amounts, evidence affidavit in lieu of chief examinatic n is liled and that suit arising out of the regrstered salc d,'ed dated 03.03.2008, u,hereas COS No.10 of 2021 pendin 1 o e the file of the Commercial Court at H1'dcrubad is fil d Iresides claiming eviction and recovery of possession lor tlre relief of mandatory injunction. This suit is also filed or.r t:rc r'ery same lease deed dated 03.03.:1008. Thus, both the ;uirs in OS No.190 of 2015 and COS No.10 of 2O2l are aris ng out of the lease deed dated 03.03.2008, the petitioners af(^| claiming recovery of Rs.44,52,404 l-, ri,hich is far be los the specified value under Commercial Courts Act Tlrerr: are no merits in the transfer petition and prayed for ,lisrnissal of the same.

¶35

Hearcl the ,earned counsel on both sides. The submrssiors nracle on either side have received due

¶36

PaZe 4 of 7

¶37

(

¶38

AVRJ TT.CMP No.82 of 2022

¶39

consideration of this Court. Perused the material available on record.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that OS No.190 of 2015 is filed by the petitioners herein for recovery of money arising out of the lease deed. Whereas, the petitioners have also filed COS No.lO of 2O2l for recovery of possession and arrears of rent and the suit is pending before the Commercial Court at Hyderabad. Both the suits relate to the same lease agreement. If the original suit pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Judge, Cit-v Civil Court at Secunderabad is transferred to the Judge, Commercial Court at Hyderabad, it would be convenient for both the parties to avoid any conflicting findings to be recorded by the two different courts.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that a1l the parties are not one and the same. There is one more respondent in COS No.1O of 2O21 , who is not a party to the proceedings to OS No. 190 of 2O 1 5 and the suit in OS No.190 of 2015 is coming for crossexamination, whereas in the suit COS No.1O of 2O2 1 is^a

¶42

Page 5 of 7

¶43

AVR.J TT.CMP No.82 of 2022

¶44

commercial disp utr . An application is also filed under Order-VII Rule- 10 c f C.P.C. to return the suit stating that the Court has n,r^ju risdictiorr axd the same is pending. ln such circumsta 1ces, there is no need to tra:-rsfer OS No.190 of 2015 :o the Commercial Court to be tried along with COS No. 1 0 rf i:02 I .

¶45

The petitioners in COS No. 10 of 2O2l h,ave filed an application undr:r Order-VII Rr-rle 10 of CPC lor rcturn of the piaint for p res entation before the appropriate Court alleging that th:^()ommercial Court has no jurisdiction. That application is still pending. Hou,ever, unclisputedly, both the suits in^()S No.190 of 20 15 and COS No. l0 of 2021 xe arisir g out of the registered sale decd dated 03.03.2008 betv,eerr the same parties. Therefore, to avoid conflicting findir gs, it is felt essential that both the suits be tried together b1 th l sarne competent court.

¶46

9 . The cardil ral principle for exercise of porver under Section 24 of CPC is that ends of^justice should demand the transfer of suit, appeal or other proceedings, it is a discretionary po fi/el , there is no strait-jacket for.nula either

¶47

Page 6 of 7 AVRJ Tr.CMP No.82 of 2022

¶48

to consider or to reject the application. In the present case, admittedly, both the suits are arising out of the same lease agreement. The suit in OS No.19O of 2015 is filed for recovery of money, whereas COS No.lO of 2O2l is filed for recovery of possession and arrears of rent, it is pending before the commercial Court. In such circumstances, to avoid conflicting findings/decisions by tu,o different courts, it is felt essential to withdraw OS No.19O of 2015 pending on the fiie of the I Additionai Chief Judge, City Civii Court at Secunderabad and to transfer the same to the Principal CommerciC Court at Hyderabad to be tried along with COS No.10 of 2021 pending on the file of that Court.

¶49

In the result, the Traasfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. OS No.190 of 2015 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, is ordered to be withdrawn ald transferred to the file of the learned Principal Judge, Commercial Court at City Civil Court, Hyderabad to be tried along with COS No.iO of 2O2l pending on the file of that Court, in accordance with law. The learned I Additional Chief Judge,

¶50

Pa9e 7 of 7

¶51

AVRJ TT.CMP No.82 of 2022

¶52

I I

¶53

City Civil Court ,rt Siecunderabad, shall transmit the entire record in OS Nr.1)0 of 2015 duly indexed, within one month from thr' d ate of recerpt of copy of this order. However, there seal be no order as to costs.

¶54

As a seque . ir terlocutorv ztpplications, if any pending

¶55

in this TT.CMP s rall stand closecl.

¶56

Sd/-N RAJAG AL ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY'

SECTIO FFICER

To,

1 ' The r Additionar ch ef - udge, crty civir court, secundrabad and the commerciar Court - cum - XXt'Acarri-onar c'nief Jr;;;,'b;y;vit Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. SU\lL B GANU Artvnn.r6 r^Dl rr.r

¶61

one CC to SRt AAtEs;H venrvin ao""*r,L"fb"ol,tf

¶62

Two CD Copies

¶63

One Spare Copy.

¶64

¶65

¶66

HIGH COURT AVR,J DATED:2610912022

¶67

_/__}t
lo{<r'an4
Aa ".
a, *s
.<) LU
o.r:
eq
: qr)

¶68

ORDER TRCMP.No.82 oi 21122

¶69

ALLOWED NO^(;O]STS

¶70

nr<br><br>

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others v. Y Naga Satish and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dundoo Vikas and 2 Others v. Y Naga Satish and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Jai Bhavani Interiors and Furniture, Secunderabad and Anothr Vs Arya Prathinidhi Sabha, a.P., Hyderabad and Another

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Sarikonda Nagendra Bhat

M/s. Grove Limited, Vs M/s. Shrinath Roto Pack (P) Ltd.

Panasa Srikanth Vs T. Ram Mohan Rao

Sarikonda Sushma Vs Saronda Nagendra Bhat

Smt. Madhuri Kalekar and another Vs Mr. Suneel Kumar Kalekar