$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 695/2025, CM APPLs. 77901/2025 &

77902/2025 RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Mr. Jaspreet Singh Kapur, Ms. Shweta, Mr. Wasim Ansari, Mr. Harshit Bhoi and Ms.

Shiwangi, Advs.

versus MR. RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

O R D E R

% 10.12.2025 CM APPL. 77902/2025 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

RFA(COMM) 695/2025

3. This appeal is directed against order dated 15 November 2025, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-11) Central District, Tis Hazari, Delhi, “learned Commercial Court”, hereinafter

4. The order is, in our prima facie opinion, truly peculiar.

5. CS (Comm) 667/2024 was instituted by the appellants against the respondents, alleging infringement of copyright as well as design, by the respondents.

6. On 29 May 2024, the learned Commercial Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the respondents and inventorize and seize any infringing goods found therein. The Local Commissioner, apparently, did not find any infringing goods at the premises noted in the order dated 29 May 2024, but found infringing goods at other premises of the respondents, which she merely inventorized.

7. The learned Commercial Court has, in the impugned order, taken very serious exception to this act of the Local Commissioner. The learned Commercial Court has proceeded to hold that, as the commission was to be executed only at one of the premises of the respondents, the Local Commissioner could not have visited any other premises. Further, the learned Commercial Court has gone on to infer, in these circumstances, that the Local Commissioner acted in collusion with the appellants-plaintiffs. This has been characterized, by the learned Commercial Court, as “grave and serious misconduct … akin to contempt of court”.

8. Thereafter, the learned Commercial Court has gone on, for no apparent reason, to refer to various decisions which deal with artful drafting of pleadings resulting in suppression and camouflaging of material facts. It is not clear from the order as to why these decisions have been cited.

9. Following this, the learned Commercial Court has concluded the order by dismissing the suit itself and further awarded exemplary costs. The concluding paragraphs of the order read thus:

“In the light of the above celebrated judgments and the fate of suits is sealed by the fraudulent conduct of plaintiffs. Such litigants do not have any right to continue this suit. Suit of the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed. Owing to fraudulent and scandalous conduct of the plaintiffs they are imposed a cost of Rs.1 lakh each to be deposited with Advocates’ Welfare Fund, Delhi Bar Association. Both the plaintiffs are imposed additional cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to defendant no. 1 Rajesh Sharma who was constrained to engage a counsel Sh. Kamal Garg.

In case costs are not deposited within 2 weeks the President, Secretary of Delhi Bar Association and Ld. Counsel for Defendant no. 1 are at liberty to move execution petition. Copy of the order be sent to them.”

10. The impugned order is, prima facie, completely unsustainable in law. The learned Commercial Court could not, in any event, have dismissed the suit, merely because it had exception to the Local Commissioner visiting the premises which were not included in the order dated 1 June 2024. Significantly, the Local Commissioner merely inventorized the goods at the second premises, and did not effect any seizure.

11. The comments regarding collusion of the learned Local Commissioner with the plaintiffs are also, to our mind, completely undeserved. No finding of collusion can be returned, even prima facie, in the absence of any pleading to that effect and sans even an iota of material to indicate c