Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

1. These four suits have been filed by Microsoft Corporation against four different defendants alleging violation of the copyright on the ground of suspicion that the defendants were using pirated/illegally-copied software of the plaintiffs at their offices/work place. The suspicion is based on the investigation done by an alleged independent "investigator" engaged by the plaintiffs, who through telephonic conversation with the employees of the defendants estimated the number of computers that may be installed at the office/work place of the defendants and thereafter matching the number of licenses of the software of the plaintiffs lawfully procured by the defendants. The plaintiffs also visited websites of the defendants to know the nature of work being done by them and the kind of software being used by the defendants and the claims being made by the defendants. On the basis of website information and the database maintained by the plaintiffs regarding sale of its licensed software and the assessment made by the investigator of the number of computers installed, the plaintiffs suspected that there was every probability of the defendants using pirated software of the plaintiffs committing infringement of copyright of the plaintiffs. Thus, it is prayed that an ex-parte injunction should be issued restraining defendants, their agents, servants and all other persons acting on their behalf from using pirated/unlicensed software programmes of the plaintiffs in any manner to protect the copyright of the plaintiffs. Coupled with the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, there is an application under Order 26 Rules 9 and 10 CPC seeking appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the offices of defendants and to seize the hard discs of the computers, compact discs and other storage/replicating media installed at defendants offices with the help of technical expert of the plaintiff and to prepare an audit report/license summaries and to determine if they contain pirated, counterfeit unlicensed version and to seize and seal the computers. CPU, hard disc, compact disc and other storage/replicating media as found to contain unlicensed, pirated, counterfeit version of any of the plaintiff's softwares, returning them on superdari to defendants with a condition to produce the same before the court and directing the defendants and their employees to provide password and particulars of their computer systems.

2. Issuance of notice of the applications and the suit to defendants for hearing and deciding on merits is resisted on the ground that this shall defeat the very purpose of filing the suit since the defendants would have sufficient opportunity to delete the pirated software from its computer systems and that would make the suit of the plaintiffs infructuous. Thus, the issuance of an ex-parte injunction along with appointment of a Local Commissioner is pressed.

3. Out of the four defendants against whom these suits have been filed, none has business place in Delhi. In C.S. (OS) No. 2027 of 2009, the defendants have offices and work places at Bangalore only. Four office addresses of defendants of Bangalore are given in this suit. In C.S. (OS) No. 2024 of 2009, the defendants have offices at Ahmedabad, Pune and Bangalore. There are seven number of office addresses of defendants in these three cities. In C.S. (OS) No. 2026 of 2009, the defendants are located at Mumbai and there are four number of office addresses of defendants in Mumbai. In C.S. (OS) No. 2132 of 2009, the defendants are located at Chandigarh and Mohali (a town near Chandigarh) and Derabassi. There are five number of office address of defendants in Chandigarh and surrounding areas as given in the suit.

4. The plaintiff is a multinational company and is having extensive business in India. It has its offices in twelve major cities in India, namely, Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Kolkatta, Mumbai, Chandigarh, Pune, Chennai, Delh