* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026 + CM(M)-IPD 47/2025 INNOVATIVE DERMA CARE .....Petitioner versus VARDHAMAN SKINCARE PVT LTD & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Ms. Aastha Sharma, Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh & Ms. Jahanvi Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr.

Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal & Mr. Risabh Gupta, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. ThepresentPetitionhasbeenfiledunderArticle227oftheConstitution of India, 1950 seeking setting aside of the order dated 21.11.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (“Trial Court”) in CS(COMM) No. 403/2019 (“Suit”) titled as ‘Innovative Derma Care v. Vardhaman Skin Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’, whereby the learned Trial Court dismissed an application (“Subject Application”) filed by the Petitioner under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 30 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) by way of which the Petitioner had sought permission of the learned Trial Court to bring on record an additional list of witnesses.

FACTUALBACKGROUND:

2. The Petitioner claims in the present petition that it is engaged in the business of marketing and selling skin care products under the Trade Mark ‘Clariwash’ (“Subject Mark”), which is owned by the Petitioner. In the month of July 2018, the Petitioner discovered that the Respondents are engaged in manufacturing and selling face wash products under the Subject Mark. Accordingly, the Petitioner instituted the Suit before the learned Trial Court.

3. During the course of proceedings in the Suit, the learned Trial Court videorderdated10.09.2024referredthemattertotheDelhiMediationCentre, Tis Hazari. Thereafter, the Mediation proceedings did not culminate into any resolution of the dispute between the Parties and the matter was referred back to the learned Trial Court.

4. The Petitioner moved an application under Order XIIIA of the CPC, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2025. Further, the learned Trial Court framed Issues in the Suit and adjourned the same for filing of list of witnesses and the appointment of Local Commissioner. In view of the same, the Petitioner filed a list of witnesses on 10.02.2025, which sought to examine Mr. Rajesh Kumar Taneja, sole proprietor of the Petitioner as PW-1.

5. Vide order dated 11.02.2025, a Local Commissioner was appointed by thelearnedTrial Court for recordingof evidence.Subsequently,the Petitioner filed an application before the learned Trial Court to examine three additional witnesses under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC. Vide order dated 06.03.2025, the learned Trial Court allowed the said application, thereby permitting the Petitionertoexaminethreeadditionalwitnessesnamely,Mr.SunilBhambhari as PW-2, Mr. Shyam Sundaram as PW-3 and Mr. Vikas Chopra as PW-4.

6. Thereafter, on 22.04.2025, the Petitioner moved the Subject Application under Order XVI Rule 1 of the CPC to bring on record two additional witnesses namely, Mr. Amit Chopra, proprietor of Mediwings as PW-5 and Mr. Gulshan Kumar, proprietor of GM Medicine Centre as PW-6. 7. Subsequently,the Petitionerpreferred an applicationunder Section151 of the CPC seeking early hearing of the SubjectApplication. On 21.11.2025, the said early hearing application was heard by the learned Trial Court and vide the Impugned Order of even date, the SubjectApplication was dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

8. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER:

9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner advanced the following submissions:

9.1 The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that under Order XVI Rule 1A of the CPC, parties are at liberty to produce any witness without applying for summons, and that no prior