The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the Commercial Court, Varanasi must decide a pending objection to its subject-matter jurisdiction before considering a request by I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. to amend its plaint in the “Sarkari Result” trademark suit. Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal dismissed the company’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which had challenged the commercial court’s August 13, 2026 direction to take up the jurisdiction application first.

Article 227 is the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. A petitioner invoking it must show a jurisdictional error or grave injustice, rather than merely reargue the merits. Here, the company’s grievance was about the order in which the commercial court proposed to hear two pending applications.

The judge observed, “An amendment seeking to rectify the essential juridical facts conferring jurisdiction upon the court cannot be said to be curing the defects.”

Trademark suit and the stalled injunction

I Think Apps owns the “Sarkari Result” trademark and had moved the commercial court under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It sought a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark and the website sarkariexam.com. It also sought a mandatory injunction to stop the use of the domain sarkariresult.com and to close certain social media platforms.

The Commercial Court, Varanasi granted a temporary injunction on June 12, 2025. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal against that order on September 23, 2025. The Supreme Court of India then stayed both orders on January 16, 2026.

With the interim protection stayed, the case returned to the commercial court. On March 23, 2026, the respondents — Anugya Gupta and another — filed an application under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking return or rejection of the plaint for lack of jurisdiction.

I Think Apps applied on August 9, 2026 to amend the plaint, seeking to specify the suit’s value as ₹5 lakh. The application came about four and a half months after the respondents raised the jurisdiction objection. The commercial court, however, directed on August 13 that the jurisdiction application be decided first. The company then moved the High Court.

The fight over order of proceedings

Before the High Court, I Think Apps argued that its proposed amendment was merely formal. It said the amendment would only add the specified value of the suit, a detail that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 requires a commercial dispute to disclose. Deciding the amendment first, it argued, would avoid the delay and expense of filing a fresh suit if the plaint were returned or rejected. The company also relied on decisions of the Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab and Haryana, and Bombay High Courts that generally favour allowing amendments.

The respondents countered that the plaint did not disclose the specified value required under Section 2(1)(i) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. That provision sets a minimum value of ₹3 lakh for a commercial dispute to fall within the Act. The proposed amendment, they said, was an attempt to manufacture jurisdiction after the fact. They also questioned the commercial court’s territorial jurisdiction and argued that the plaint disclosed no cause of action.

Justice Agarwal noted that the specified value had not been disclosed when the suit was filed, and that the amendment application came only after the respondents raised the jurisdiction objection. Although courts are liberal in allowing amendments at an early stage, the judge held that the jurisdiction challenge had to be addressed first.

Why the challenge must go first

The High Court distinguished objections to territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction from objections to subject-matter jurisdiction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. (2005), the court explained that a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction cannot adjudicate a dispute at all, and any order passed without such jurisdiction is a nullity.

The judge rejected the argument that the amendment would merely correct a defect without changing the nature of the case. In his view, the proposed amendment would alter the character of the original plaint, because the specified value is an essential fact that confers jurisdiction on a commercial court.

“Where subject-matter jurisdiction has been raised, the same needs to be addressed first prior to taking up of amendment application as the court which does not have jurisdiction of subject-matter cannot pass any order for amending the plaint as it would be a nullity,” the court ruled.

The High Court also rejected the company’s submission that deciding the amendment application first would cause no prejudice. Procedural convenience, it held, could not override the need to establish jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed without costs.

What happens next

The High Court did not express any opinion on whether the commercial court actually has jurisdiction over the suit. Its ruling was limited to the sequence of hearings. The matter now returns to the Commercial Court, Varanasi, which will take up the respondents’ application for return or rejection of the plaint. If the court decides that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the plaint may be returned or rejected at the threshold. If it upholds its jurisdiction, I Think Apps’ application to amend the plaint can be considered on its own merits.