1. The present Civil Revision Petition arises out of an ad-interim injunction order passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, on 24.07.2026 in an Interlocutory Application (I.A.No.1023 of 2026) filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff in O.S.No.3067 of 2026.

2. The revision petitioner is the defendant No.1 in a Suit (O.S.No.3067 of 2026) filed by the plaintiff for decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from soliciting, recruiting any employee of the plaintiff or any of its associated entities in breach of the contractual obligations undertaken by the defendants.

3. The plaintiff filed an interlocutory application (I.A.No.1023 of 2026) in the said Suit (O.S.No.3067 of 2026) seeking ad-interim injunction in respect of the same relief.

4. The Trial Court, by the impugned order dated 24.07.2026, granted ad-interim injunction against the defendant No.1 (revision petitioner herein), as prayed for by the plaintiff therein. The plaintiff’s I.A. was posted to 14.08.2026. This was the basis on which the present Civil Revision Petition was filed on 28.07.2026.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 hands up a more detailed order in Court today stating that the detailed order was not available on the date of filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 and the respondent No.1/plaintiff.

7. The case sought to be made out by Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1 is that the Trial Court was Coram non judice since the dispute brought by the plaintiff to the Court was essentially a commercial dispute as defined under section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CCA’) i.e., a Commercial Suit relating to intellectual property rights. Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned order is opaque as it is without reasons and that the High Court in its revisional power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should interfere with the impugned order on the above grounds.

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/plaintiff submits that the detailed order did not form part of the Civil Revision Petition as it was originally filed on 28.07.2026 and further that the petitioner/defendant No.1 is yet to raise a plea of the Trial Court being Coram non judice since it is not a designated Commercial Court under the provisions of the CCA, particularly section 2(1)(c)(xvii). Senior Counsel further submits that as opposed to the revision petitioner’s case, the Suit was based essentially on an employment contract as part of the appointment letter which did not contemplate violation of any intellectual property rights.

9. It is correct that the Civil Revision Petition, as originally filed, did not contain the detailed order which has been placed before the Court today. The grounds taken for challenging the one- paragraph order, as filed, are in relation to the detailed order placed before the Court today. The petitioner may have had an opportunity of raising additional grounds to assail the order which has been placed for the Court’s perusal today.

10. Notwithstanding the above, the fact that the Trial Court erred in deciding the matter which allegedly is a commercial dispute involving intellectual property rights under section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the CCA is yet to be urged or taken up as a demurrer before the Trial Court. Admittedly, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has not filed any such application or even a counter to the plaintiff’s I.A. as on date. Therefore, the fact whether the Trial Court is Coram non judice or lacks the authority to decide a commercial dispute must be taken up for consideration and decided by the Trial Court.

11. It is also arguable as to whether the Suit was filed purely on intellectual property considerations or on an employment contract simpliciter. The prayer of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff complains against breach of contractual violations on the part of the defendants. The contract would appear from an appointment letter issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 on 23.01.2008. Clause 6 of the appointment letter contains a clause on “Restriction after termination” and imposes certain conditions on the defendant No.1 post-termination of the employment, specifically within 2 years after termination. Hence, on the face of it, the prayer in the Suit is against a contract which contains certain prohibitions against the defendant No.1’s post termination. The contract, per se, does not contemplate any violation of intellectual property rights.

12. Even if the Trial Court relies on the non-disclosure and non-solicitation agreement dated 01.06.2018 between the defendant No.1 and Schnabel DC Consultants India Pvt. Ltd. (Group company of the plaintiff) is taken into consideration, the decision of the Trial Court with regard to any intellectual property colouring the dispute between the parties must be on an application filed by the defendant No.1 in that regard. Without such an application, the High Court cannot come to any conclusion as to the Trial Court passing the impugned order without jurisdiction.

13. The other relevant factor is that the detailed order makes it clear that the matter has been made returnable on 14.08.2026, within which the plaintiff is to comply with the mandate of Order XXXIX Rule 3A of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’). Thus, the detailed order makes it clear that the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 has an opportunity to file an appropriate application against the impugned order in whatever form the revision petitioner is advised.

14. Under the circumstances, the revision petitioner/defendant No.1 is given liberty to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court by way of a demurrer or otherwise so that the Trial Court can decide the contentions of the revision petitioner that the dispute indeed is a commercial dispute which should be heard and tried in a Commercial Court.

15. The above reasons persuade this Court to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition with a liberty to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to file an appropriate application before the Trial Court urging the same grounds which the revision petitioner has urged before this Court, particularly in relation to the dispute being a commercial dispute under the provisions of the CCA. The Trial Court shall decide the application as and when filed and make an effort to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. Needless to say, none of the parties before the Trial Court shall attempt to adjourn or delay the matter. It is also deemed relevant to point out that even the detailed order placed before the Court today does not contain reasons as reflected in last paragraph of the detailed order. It is also made clear that the Trial Court shall proceed to decide I.A.No.1023 of 2026 filed by the plaintiff and any other application filed by the defendant No.1/revision petitioner on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

16. C.R.P.No.2375 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.