1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the docket order dated 23.12.2025 passed in I.A. No.1681 of 2025 in O.S. No.489 of 2025 on the file of the XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Along with the CMA, the appellant filed I.A. No.2 of 2025 for interim suspension.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts leading to file the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are that, the appellant has filed a suit in O.S.No.489 of 2025 seeking for grant of permanent injunction, along with an application in I.A. No.1681 of 2025 in O.S. No.489 of 2025 seeking for grant of temporary injunction and the same was granted by the trial court vide its order, dated 29.10.2025 and the same was also executed by the Advocate-Commissioner and the Advocate-Commissioner has filed his report executing the warrant dated 07.11.2025. The trial Court extended the interim order from time to time. Meanwhile, a circular dated 04.12.2025 was issued by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, informing all the courts to transfer the cases relating to commercial disputes, valuing more than Rs.3 lakhs, in their respective courts to the Judge, Principal Special Court in the cadre of District Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial Disputes, Hyderabad.

4. The impugned I.A. was listed on 05.12.2025 before the trial Court for filing written arguments in the application filed by the respondents herein under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking to return the plaint. On 05.12.2025, after the filing of the written arguments by both parties, the trial Court reserved the application and posted the matter on 15.12.2025 for orders in Order VII Rule 10 application. The interim order granted by the trial court was extended on application. On 15.12.2025, the trial court posted the application under Order VII Rule 10 for orders. At that juncture, the above circular was brought to the notice of the trial court and the trial court posted the matter on 17.12.2025 for orders. On 17.12.2025, when the appellant represented the matter, the learned trial court, informed the apellant that the matter would be transferred to the Commercial Court in pursuance of the circular issued by the Chief Judge. As an abundant caution, the appellant has filed an extension petition on 17.12.2025 seeking an extension of interim orders.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that without the knowledge and notice to the appellant, on 23.12.2025, the trial court while transferring the suit to the Commercial Court on one hand, had stated that it has no jurisdiction to try the petition and, on the other hand, has vacated the interim order granted earlier as no extension application was filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the docket order of the trial court dated 23.12.2025 is against the law and without jurisdiction, hence liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the appellant, despite being fully aware that the subject matter constitutes a commercial dispute, deliberately instituted the suit before a court lacking jurisdiction, thereby engaging in forum shopping. The filing of the suit before the XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, instead of the competent Commercial Court, renders the proceedings without jurisdiction. Consequently, any order passed by the said court is a nullity and void-ab-initio. In view of the lack of jurisdiction, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, being I.A. No.1748 of 2025, seeking return of the plaint. After hearing both sides, the said I.A. was reserved for orders.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that on 05.12.2025, written arguments were filed by both parties and the matter was posted to 15.12.2025 for orders. The ex parte interim order was extended on 05.12.2025 only till the next date of hearing, i.e. 15.12.2025. However, on 15.12.2025, while the matter was posted to 17.12.2025, there was no extension of the interim injunction order. The contention that an extension application was filed on 17.12.2025 is entirely false. The trial court did not extend the interim injunction order on 17.12.2025, as well as is evident from the docket proceedings. Thus, there was no subsisting interim injunction order after 15.12.2025. The trial court had rightly held that it lacked jurisdiction and consequently, any orders passed by it are a nullity and void-ab-initio. As borne out from the docket proceedings, no extension application was filed by the appellant, and the ex parte interim order was not extended beyond 15.12.2025. It is settled law that an order of injunction operates only for the period for which it is expressly extended, and in the absence of such extension, the same lapses by efflux of time. In the present case, the ex parte injunction order stood extended up to 15.12.2025 only and not thereafter.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submits that the appellant is not challenging the transfer of suit to the Commercial Court vide order dated 23.12.2025, but is only challenging a portion of the said order, i.e. the vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction. The suit in O.S.No.489 of 2025 has already been transferred to the Commercial Court and re-numbered as C.O.S.No.86 of 2025. Further, I.A.No.1681 of 2025 has been re-numbered as I.A. No.1659 of 2025. It is also submitted that the respondents herein have already filed their written statements and counter in I.A.No.1659 of 2025 before the Commercial Court. Respondent No.2 also filed a counter- claim seeking an injunction restraining the appellant from passing off respondent No.2’s trade mark / brand name NEW SANTOSH DHABA on the ground that it is the prior user of the mark “SANTOSH DHABA” since 1997, and that the appellant has approached the Court by suppressing material facts regarding the history between the parties. Respondent No.2 has also filed an application under Sec.12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, seeking reference to the parties to mediation, as mandatorily prescribed under the said Act. Under these circumstances, the relief sought by the appellant is liable to be rejected.

10. At the time of admission, in I.A.No.2 of 2025, after hearing the matter both sides, this Court passed the following interim order as under:

               “There shall be interim suspension of the operation of the order dated 23.12.2025 passed in I.A. No.1681 of 2025 in O.S. No.489 of 2025 on the file of XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, till the next date of hearing and the petitioner is also directed not to take any adverse action against the respondent organization or the Hotels till the next date of hearing.”

11. Subsequently, the matter was listed on 13.04.2026. After hearing the matter for some time, this Court directed the registry to call for the records in O.S.No.489 of 2025 and the interim order granted by this Court is extended till the next date of hearing. On 22.04.2026, received the records from the trial Court, and the matter was heard at length on both sides.

12. Aggrieved by the interim order passed by this Court, in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.M.A.No.524 of 2025, the appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, by way of Spl. Leave Petition (Civil) No.9879 of 2026. The Hon’ble Apex Court disposed the matter on 19.03.2026, by observing as follows:

               “We take notice of the fact that the main matter is coming up before the High Court on 24.03.2026. The ends of justice would be met if the High Court takes up the main matter on 24.03.2026 as already fixed. With the aforesaid, the special leave petition stands disposed.”

13. A perusal of the trial court proceedings dated 15.12.2025 reads as follows:

               “Orders not made ready, posted to 17.12.2025 for orders.”

On 17.12.2025, the matter was listed for orders and posted to 23.12.2025. The trial court passed the order on 23.12.2025, which reads as follows:

               Both sides absent. In view of circular issued by Hon’ble Chief Judge, dated. 11.12.2025 and in view Order in CRP 1932/2025 of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, and since the dispute in the present case is arising out of Trade mark infringement, and also the value of the dispute is more than 3 lakhs, this court has no Jurisdiction to try this case and has to be tried by the commercial court. Hence, office is directed to transfer this case to Principal Special Court, of District Judge for trial and disposal of Commercial disputes, Hyderabad, alter proper indexing. Both parties, shall appear before the Principal Spl. court in the cadre of District Judge for trial and disposal of commercial disputes, Hyderabad, on 22.01.2026 I.A.No: 71748/2025. In view of circular issued by Hon’ble Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad, and in view of order in CRPNo. 1932/2025 this court has no Jurisdiction, to try the case. Hence no order are passed. Posted to 22.01.2026 along With main suit I.A.No. 1681/2025. In view of circular issued by Hon’ble: Chief Judge, City Civil Court, and in view of Judgment in CRRNo. 1932 of 2025, this case has to be trial, by commercial court. Hence this court has no Jurisdiction to try this petition. Both sides called absent. No extension. petition is filed by petitioner.

               In view of above citation as this court has no Jurisdiction and also as the petitioner has not filed any extension of Injunction order petition is filed by the Ex parte Injunction order passed by the court, dated 29.10.2025 is vacated.

14. The impugned order discloses that, at the time of its passing, neither the counsel for the petitioner nor the counsel for the respondent was present before the trial Court. The trial Court observed that no petition had been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the interim injunction granted on 29.10.2025 and, on that ground, held that the said injunction stood vacated. Aggrieved by the said order vacating the interim injunction, the appellant has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

15. The appellant filed all the certified copies, which were obtained from the trial court, for extension of interim orders. Along with them, lastly, he enclosed the list of events and dates. A perusal of the list of events dated 17.12.2025 discloses that extension petition was filed and accepted vide SR No.9004 of 2025 - interim orders are allowed. On 18.12.2025, it is stated that the matter was not listed, as a precaution, extension petition was filed vide SR No.9050 of 2025 in IA No.1681 of 2025. It seems that on 17.12.2025, the extension petition accepted and interim orders were allowed. But, in the proceeding sheet dated 17.12.2025, there is no such observation. Only observed for orders, call on 23.12.2025. It indicates that the interim orders were not extended. Thus, there was no subsisting interim injunction order after 15.12.2025.

16. The stand taken by the appellant is self-contradictory. Having asserted that an extension petition was filed on 17.12.2025 as a measure of abundant caution, the question of filing yet another petition on 18.12.2025 vide S.R. No. 9050 of 2025 does not arise. This inconsistency remains unexplained and leads to an inference that the appellant has not approached the Court with full disclosure of material facts. Moreover, on 17.12.2025, as per their grounds in ground No.7, they said that trial the Court informed them that the matter would be transferred to the Commercial Court in pursuance of the circular issued by the Chief Judge. The above mentioned fact indicates that the appellant knows very well about the transfer of the case to the Commercial Court on 17.12.2025, itself. As per the proceeding sheet, the matter was posted to 17.12.2025 for orders, and on 17.12.2025, the matter was adjourned to 23.12.2025. Knowing all the above mentioned facts, the appellant kept silent with regard to extension of interim orders and the filing of an extension petition. As per the appellant’s contention, on 18.12.2025, the extension petition filed vide SR No.9050 of 2025 was not pursued by the appellant’s counsel and was simply neglected. Due to above mentioned facts, the learned trial Court, while transferring the suit to the Commercial Court due to non-filing of the extension petition, ex parte interim order granted by the trial court on 29.10.2025, is vacated. Once the petitioner had known about the said order, he would have taken steps with regard to his extension petition before the same Court immediately after the passing of this order, but he challenged the said order before this Court on 29.12.2025 by way of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, questioning the part of the interim order, i.e. vacation of the interim order.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following case laws:

               i) (2008) 8 SCC 92 in the case of State Bank of India and others Vs. S.N. Goel, decided on May 2, 2008.

The entire case law is discussed with regard to quasi judicial authority and its functions. The present case is not related to quasi judicial; hence, the above case law is not applicable to the case on hand.

               ii) Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 5 of 2026 in C.A. No.7023 of 2025 in the case of Israr Ahmed Khan Vs. Amarnath Prasad and others;

The above case law refers to contempt cases and the repercussions of contempt cases while passing the orders. This is also not applicable to the present case.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following cases:

               i) (2020) 12 SCC 667 in the case of EXL Careers and another V Frankfinn Services Private Limited (in Civil Appeal No.2904 of 2020, decided on 05.08.2020).

Regarding the transfer of the cases and the validity of their orders. Relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:

               “Para No.20: The statutory scheme now becomes clear. In cases dealing with transfer of proceedings from a court having jurisdiction to another court, the discretion vested in the court by Sec.24 (2) and 25(3) either to retry the proceedings or proceed from the point at which such proceedings was transferred or withdrawn, is in marked contrast to the scheme under Order VII Rule 10 r/w Rule 10(a) where no such discretion is given and the proceedings has to commence de novo.”

In the present case at hand, initially, the trial court has taken up the matter. Later, due to subsequent changes transferred to the Commercial Court. While transferring the same, the trial court vacated the interim order that was given at the time of admission. Moreover, non-filing of the extension petition was also one of the grounds for vacating the order. However, with regard to the above observation, courts have discretionary power either to continue or to de novo. Hence, the trial court acted in a proper manner.

19. Though both sides have placed reliance on various decisions concerning transfer of proceedings and the continuance of interim orders, this Court is of the view that the said precedents need not be discussed in detail, as the issue involved herein is only to the extent of the trail court’s order that it vacated the injunction order. The limited question for determination is whether the trial Court, while ordering transfer of the suit to the Commercial Court, was justified in vacating the subsisting interim order or not. The appeal shall, therefore, be examined within the confines of the said issue.

20. As per the proceeding sheet of the trial Court, the matter was posted to 17.12.2025, for orders in IA No.1748 of 2025 (Order VII Rule10 CPC), and on 17.12.2025 the matter was adjourned to 23.12.2025. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, an application for extension of the interim order was filed on 17.12.2025 by way of abundant caution. If such an application had indeed been filed on the previous day, the necessity of filing another petition vide S.R. No. 9050 of 2025 on 18.12.2025 does not arise. Thus, there is no clarity as to whether any valid extension of the interim order was actually granted or not. Be that as it may, a perusal of the proceedings sheet of the trial Court reveals that the matter had already been transferred to the Commercial Court prior to the filing of the present appeal. In such circumstances, this Court is unable to call for the record from the transferor Court. Furthermore, the material available on record does not disclose any order extending the temporary injunction beyond 15.12.2025. Consequently, prima facie, the interim order of temporary injunction ceased to operate after 15.12.2025.

21. It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order was passed after the issuance of the Circular dated 11.12.2025 by the Chief Judge. Once the said Circular came into force, the trial Court lacked the authority to proceed further in the matter. Therefore, any order passed thereafter would be without jurisdiction.

22. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by setting aside the docket order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 1681 of 2025 in O.S. No. 489 of 2025.

Pending consideration of I.A. No. 1659 of 2025 in C.O.S. No. 86 of 2025 by the Commercial Court, both parties are directed not to take any adverse or coercive steps against each other.

The Commercial Court is further directed to consider and dispose of I.A. No. 1659 of 2025 in C.O.S. No. 86 of 2025 expeditiously, after affording due opportunity of hearing to both parties and in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.