$~58

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 1336/2025 & I.A. 31232-31235/2025

MR KONIDALA PAWAN KALYAN .....Plaintiff

Through: J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Himanshu Deora, Mr. Rahul Mehta, Mr. Arpit Choudhary, Mr. Krumal Mehta, Ms. Anupriya Alok, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Mr. Sanat, Ms. Shambhavi Bhardwaj, Ms. Karen

Koya and Ms. Dhwani Vora, Advs.

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR JOHN DOE & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Ms. Shilpa Gupta and Ms. Surabhi

Pande, Advs. for D-2

Ms. Srishti Dhoundiyal, Advocate for

D-3

Ms. Mishthi Dubey, Adv. for D-4

Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Vani Kaushik and Mr. Rohith Venkatesan, Advs. for

D-5

Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakaran and Ms. Varsha Jhavar,

Advs. for D-6

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 22.12.2025

I.A. 31233/2025

1. This application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [‘CPC’] [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking leave to file additional

documents within a period of thirty [30] days.

2. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents will file the same within a period of thirty [30] days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

4. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 31234/2025

5. This application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

6. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-

institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 31235/2025

8. The present application has been filed under Section 80 of CPC read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the Plaintiff seeking exemption from issuing advance notice to Defendant Nos. 13 and 14 under Section 80(1) of CPC.

9. In view of the fact that the plaintiff has sought an ex parte ad-interim injunction and Defendant Nos. 13 and 14 are proforma Defendants, the exemption from effecting service of statutory notice upon the Defendant Nos. 13 and 14 is granted.

10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM) 1336/2025

11. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining misappropriation of personality/publicity rights, infringement of copyright, passing off and other ancillary reliefs against the Defendants.

12. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff states that advance service has been affected on all the Defendants, except Defendant No. 1 i.e., Ashok Kumar/John Doe.

13. He states that Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 are identified infringing Defendants.

14. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

15. Summons be issued to Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 [‘infringing Defendants’] through speed post and e-mail, upon filing of process fee.

Affidavit of service(s) be filed within one [1] week.

16. Summons shall state that the written statement(s) shall be filed within thirty [30] days. Along with the written statement(s) the Defendants shall also file affidavit(s) of admission/denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff, failing which the written statement(s) shall not be taken on record.

17. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication(s) thereto within thirty [30] days after filing of the written statement(s). The replication(s) shall be accompanied by affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendants, failing which the replication(s) shall not be taken on record.

18. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

19. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in ac