$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 07.04.2026 + FAO (COMM) 79/2026 & CM APPL. 17286/2026 RITIK KUMAR .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, Mr. Abhinav Jaganathan and Ms. Preeti Shukla, Advocates versus R.H. AGRO OVERSEAS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rima Majumdar, Ms. Deboleena Dutta, Ms. Prashni Kathuria, Mrs. Bindra Rana and Mr.

Vikrant Rana, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/defendant assailing the order dated 02.02.2026 [‘impugned order’] passed by the Ld. District Judge (Commercial)-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [‘Trial Court’] in CS (Comm) No. 127 of 2026 titled ‘R.H. Agro Overseas v. Shri Ritik Kumar and Anr.’

2. By way of the impugned order, the Trial Court, proceeded to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the impugned mark NAFEEZA as well as the impugned Label/trade-dress in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’]. Through a common order, the Trial Court also allowed the applications seeking (i) exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’]; and (ii) appointment of Local Commissioners under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC.

3. The Respondent/plaintiff filed a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off, claiming statutory rights in the registered mark ‘NAFIS’ in Class 30 for selling rice. The Appellant is engaged in the identical rice business, and has applied for registration of the mark ‘NAFEEZA’ (with BTR device) under Class 30, on 17.05.2025 and had commenced sale of its products in the market in December 2025.

The Respondent alleging that the Appellant’s mark and packaging were deceptively similar instituted the suit against it on 29.01.2026 along with multiple applications, including applications for exemption from pre- litigation mediation, interim injunction and appointment of Local Commissioners.

4. The Trial Court, on 31.01.2026, heard only the Respondent on all the applications and reserved for orders on 02.02.2026. By the impugned order dated 02.02.2026 the Trial Court granted exemption from pre-litigation mediation, passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant, and appointed Local Commissioners, without issuing notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. While disposing of the applications, subsequently, the Appellant was directed to be served with summons.

5. Mr. Vinay P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is vitiated as it has been passed in complete breach of the principles of natural justice¹. He states that the Trial Court granted and finally disposed of the application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC by the impugned order without issuing notice to or affording any opportunity of hearing to the Appellant. He contends that such an injunction, passed ex-parte and intended to operate for the entire pendency of the suit, is contrary to the settled scheme of Order XXXIX CPC and is liable to be treated as a nullity in law.

6. He further argues that since the Appellant’s products were already in the market since December 2025 prior to the institution of the suit in January 2026, the grant of injunction without hearing the Appellant is impermissible, and in such circumstances, Courts are required to adopt a more cautious approach, as held in Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 (Supp) SCC 727, at paragraph no. 9. and followed by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., Submissions by the Appellant, mandating at least a rudimentary opportunity of hearing to the Defendant before granting ad-interim reli