$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI reserved on: 4 February 2026 pronounced on: 20 April 2026 + RFA(OS)(COMM) 38/2025 & CM APPL. 80125/2025 CASTROL LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Janaki Arun, Ms. Anuja Chaudhary and Mr. Arpit Singhal, Advs.

versus SANJAY SONAVANE AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Parth Singh, Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Mr.

Madhav Anand, Advs. for R-1 Ms. Anuparna Chatterjee, Adv. for R-5 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA % JUDGMENT

20.04.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

Facilitative Index to the Judgment A. The lis

1. Castrol Ltd., 1“Castrol”hereinafter instituted two suits against Sanjay Sonavane.

2. In CS(Comm) 855/2025, 2“thefirstsuit”hereinafter, there are two defendants. The first defendant was Sanjay Sonavane and the second defendant was Indilube Petro Specialty Pvt. Ltd, 3“Indilube”hereinafter, in which Sanjay Sonavane was a Director.

3. In CS(Comm) 946/2025, 4“thesecondsuit”hereinafter, there were five defendants apart from Sanjay Sonavane, who was Defendant 1. Defendant 2 was Daily Bhramar, Defendant 3 was Maharastra Bulletin, a digital news agency, and Defendant 4 was Saksham Times Media Foundation, which was alleged to be owning and operating the newspaper Saksham Police Times. Defendant 5 was Google LLC, which owned the YouTube platform and Defendant 6 were unknown defendants impleaded under the appellation Ashok Kumar/John Doe.

4. A learned Single Judge of this Court has, by judgment dated 24 November 2025, dismissed CS (Comm) 946/2025 as being barred by Order II Rule 2⁵ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 6“CPC”hereinafter. The appellant has been granted liberty to amend CS (Comm) 855/2025 to bring on record subsequent developments and implead necessary parties in accordance with law.

5. Aggrieved thereby, Castrol has instituted the present appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. Urfee Roomi, learned Counsel for Castrol, Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan for Respondent 1 and Ms. Anuparna Chatterjee, learned Counsel for Respondent 5 Google LLC at length.

B. The issue

7. The limited issue which arises for consideration is, therefore, whether CS (Comm) 946/2025 was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the

52. Suittoincludethewholeclaim.–

(1) Every suitshallincludethewholeof theclaimwhich theplaintiffisentitledtomakein respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim in order to bringthesuitwithinthejurisdictionofanyCourt.

(2) Relinquishment of part of claim.—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portionsoomittedorrelinquished.

(3) Omission to sueforoneofseveral reliefs.—Apersonentitled tomorethanonerelief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if heomits, except withtheleaveoftheCourt,tosueforallsuchreliefs,heshallnotafterwardssueforanyreliefso omitted.

Explanation.—Forthepurposesofthisruleanobligationandacollateralsecurityforits performanceandsuccessiveclaimsarisingunderthesameobligationshallbedeemedrespectively toconstitutebutonecauseofaction.

CPC.

C. Facts

8. In order to determine the above issue, it would be necessary for us to examine, holistically, the exact facts and averments pleaded in the two suits and the cause of action from which they arise.

I. CS (Comm) 855/2025 – the first suit

9. The prayer clause in the first suit reads thus:

“65. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the following reliefs in favour of the Plaintiff, and against theDefendant:

a. An order for declaration under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that the Plaintiff’s 3X Marks, including do not infringe the Defendant’s rights intheDefendant’s 3P Marks, including ; b. An order for declaration under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 that the Plaintiff’s 3X Marks, including do not infringe th