O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 24(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] seeking transfer of CS(COMM) No. 447/2025 titled as ANI Media Private Limited v. Mohak Mangal and Another, pending before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi to this Court for being heard along with CS(COMM) 573/2025 titled ANI Media Private Limited v. Mohak Mangal and Others pending adjudication before this Court.

2. The Petitioner herein is the defendant in both the suits i.e., CS(COMM) 573/2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit no. 1’], as well as CS(COMM) No. 447/2025 [hereinafter referred to as ‘suit no. 2’]. So also, Respondent No. 1 herein is the plaintiff in both suit no. 1 as well as suit no. 2.

3. It is a matter of record that Respondent No. 1 on 28.05.2025, filed suit no. 1 i.e., CS(COMM) No. 573/2025 before this Court impugning Petitioner’s video titled “Dear ANI” published on 25.05.2025 and averring trademark infringement, defamation and disparagement qua six (6) other videos published by the Petitioner herein.

4. It is also a matter of record that thereafter, on 02.06.2025, Respondent No. 1 filed suit no. 2 i.e., CS(COMM) No. 447/2025 before the Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It is averred by the Petitioner that in this suit Respondent No. 1 has impugned a total of ten (10) videos published by the Petitioner, alleging copyright and trademark infringement. It is stated that out of these ten (10) impugned videos, six (6) are the same videos that are alleged to constitute trademark infringement, defamation and disparagement in suit no. 1, filed before this Court.

5. Ms. Diya Kapur, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the subsequently filed, suit no. 2 is similar in nature and documentary evidence in both the suits [suit no. 1 and suit no. 2] is common. She states that similar issues arise for consideration in both the suits. She states that infact, the reference to the identical six (6) videos in both the plaints show that the cause of action has been split up by Respondent No. 1 and the suit no. 2 has been filed without seeking leave of the Court in suit no. 1. She states that the pleadings of the Respondent No. 1 in both the plaints is overlapping and the defence of the Petitioner in both the suits would similarly overlap.

5.1. She states that the transfer of suit no. 2 before this Court will (i) serve the interest of the convenience of the parties, (ii) avoid multiplicity of proceedings and (iii) shall provide a comprehensive apprehension of all

disputes in one forum.

5.2. She states that the Petitioner is an individual and defending the suit in different forums will be onerous on him.

5.3. She relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills v. Jaypee Rewa Cement, ((2004) 3 SCC 85 [Paragraph Nos. 9 and 12]), and Raj Television Network Ltd. v. Ultra Media & Entertainment (P) Ltd., (2024 SCC OnLine SC 4033 [Paragraph Nos. 8, 12 and 13])

6. In reply, Mr. Sidhant Kumar, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 states that in suit no. 1 pending before this Court, in addition to the Petitioner herein there are other private defendant, who have been arrayed as parties therein. He states that in suit no. 2, Petitioner herein has been impleaded as defendant no. 1 and is the only contesting defendant therein.

6.1. He states that it is stand of Respondent No. 1 that there is no identity of causes of action. He however, fairly states that no prejudice will be caused to Respondent No. 1 if suit no. 2 is transferred to this Court.

6.2. He states that as per Section 15(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [‘Act of 2015’] the appropriate forum for entertaining this petition for transfer would be the Commercial Appellate Division Bench and this Court has no jurisdiction.

7. In response, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the argument of Section 15(5) of the Act of 2015 is inapplicable in the facts of this case. She states that the s