$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M)-IPD 40/2025, CM 244/2025 & CM 245/2025 YATISHKUMAR BABURAO GAIKWAD & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Ms. Vibhati Gupta, Advocates versus SACHIN SARIYA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Ms.

Namrata Jain, Mr. Vijay Soni, Mr. Shivendra Pratap Singh and Ms.

Nishtha Kapoor, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assails the order dated 17.09.2025 of the learned Trial Court whereby the application under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”), seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that it is barred by law and discloses no cause of action for having been instituted in the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, was dismissed.

2. Mr. Yuvraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant brings attention of this Court to para 46 of the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff to submit that except for a bald averment that a cause of action has arisen in the third week of February, 2025 where the defendants were found advertising, soliciting and supplying their goods, which were available in Delhi markets at Naraina, R.K. Puram and Sarojini Nagar, there is no document filed worth its name, which would prove or atleast prima facie establish that Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction of the subject matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the plaintiff has not filed any document till date in support of the contention in para 46, nor is there any application which has been filed seeking permission to file any document or invoice or any other such paper document or evidence, which would atleast prima facie indicate that Courts at Delhi could exercise territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter. He also submits that though the respondent/plaintiff has claimed that an agent at Delhi has purchased the alleged infringed products, however, neither the name of the agent nor the shop from where such alleged purchase has taken place or even the purchase order has been placed alongwith the plaint.

4. He submits that the petitioner/defendant is situated in Solapur, where it manufactures the goods like fuses, etc. and has not supplied anywhere beyond the territory of the State of Maharashtra alone. He asserts that the petitioner/defendant has never sold any goods in Delhi. Accordingly, the averments being bald have to be nipped in the bud and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff may be dismissed.

5. He relies upon the judgments of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr. reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780, judgment of this Court dated 20.08.2023 Vikrant Chemico Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. Shri Gopal Engineering and Chemical in CS(COMM) 85/2018 as also Indovax Pvt. Ltd vs. Merck Animal Health and Ors. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9393 to buttress his arguments.

6. Predicated on the aforesaid, he submits that the order assailed in the present petition is unsustainable in law and as also on facts.

7. Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the dismissal or the rejection of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC by the learned Trial Court is sustainable in law as also on facts.

8. He invites attention of this Court not only to para 46 but also paras 47 and 48 to submit that not only has the respondent/plaintiff indicated where the goods were being sold but also has given clear indication as to what were the goods that were purchased. Coupled with that, he also submits that the respondent/plaintiff has also averred in para 48 of the plaint that while conducting a search on the internet, the respondent/plaintiff also found that the petitioner/defendant were also advertising, soliciting, supplying, wholesaling, selling, trading, marketing, dealing and inviting trade inquir