$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 13.04.2026 + FAO (COMM) 103/2026 ADOBE INCORPORATED & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Aarshia Behl, Ms. Shruti Baid, Ms. Aashi Sharma, Ms. Bhavya Manda, Mr. Suryansh Gupta, Ms. Yashi Singh and Ms. Ashwarya Bansal, Advs.

versus YY AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

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

CM APPL. 23713/2026 & CM APPL. 23714/2026 (Exemptions)

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 23823/2026 (For leave to file addl. docs.)

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

4. The application stands disposed of.

FAO (COMM) 103/2026 & CM APPL. 23710/2026, CM APPL.

23712/2026

5. This appeal lays a challenge to an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, (Commercial Court-07) South-East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, whereby, the learned District Judge has rejected the application filed by the appellants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and a separate application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.

6. The submission of Ms. Behl, the learned counsel for the appellants is primarily that the learned District Judge has erred in rejecting the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC at the first date of hearing, by stating as under: -

“…..

31. Having regard to the above, material filed on record is miserably inadequate to term it sufficient for showing a prima facie case in Plaintiff’s favour. As Plaintiffs have filed to show any prima facie case, test for balance for convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, also fails, In view of the above observations, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction is rejected.

32. Plaintiff has proposed to relief of appointment of Local Commissioner primarily based on the pleas taken in consideration while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. In terms of law settled for appointment of Local Commissioner, it is noted that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for carrying investigation for plaintiff and collecting evidence on plaintiff’s behalf.

33. For the reasons that plaintiff has not been able to detail specifically any evidence, the request for appointment of Local Commissioner at this stage, is not maintainable. The application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC r/w Order XXXIX Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC is also rejected.”

7. She submits that, appropriate would have been for the learned District Judge to issue at least a notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, for the defendants to appear before the Court and answer the allegations as made in the plaint and the application. She states that in view of the averments made in the plaint and application a prima facie finding should have been made in favour of the appellants and an interim relief granted as deemed appropriate. She states that it is the categorical assertion in the plaint that defendants are using pirated software. 8. She submits that, the appellants’ case is that though the defendants/respondents have licences in respect of Adobe Acrobat [221 licences], defendants/respondents are also using the same product on additional machines without any licence. She states that many of these licences have also not been renewed by the Defendants. It is her submission that, if a Court Commissioner (CC) is appointed, the report of the CC would prove the stand taken by the appellants, which would have assisted the learned District Judge to pass appropriate orders in the injunction application as also final determination of the suit.

9. She relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Autodesk Inc and Ors. V. A.V.T. Shankardass and Ors¹. to contend that in identical facts the Division Bench held that appointment of the Court Commis