1. Petition under Article 227 challenging dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 CPC application in suit for copyright infringement and passing off. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18620
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
P.J. Sikand (Paramjeet Singh) – Appellant
Versus
Guruji Ka Ashram Trust – Respondent
CM(M)-IPD 51/2026 | CM 248/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shikhil Suri, Madhu, Jyoti, Sakshi, Abhikant, Siddhant, Vinay
For the Respondents: Amit Sibbal, Akshita, Vidhur Mohan, Saksham, Deepika, Nitin, Naman, Aditya, Radhika
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shikhil Suri, Madhu, Jyoti, Sakshi, Abhikant, Siddhant, Vinay
For the Respondents: Amit Sibbal, Akshita, Vidhur Mohan, Saksham, Deepika, Nitin, Naman, Aditya, Radhika
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and cannot be used to re-evaluate facts or correct plausible views of a lower court, especially regarding the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 where averments in the plaint are presumed correct.
Headnote:(A) Rejection of Plaint - Cause of Action - Under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, the court must determine if the plaint discloses a cause of action by scrutinizing the averments in the plaint and the documents relied upon, presuming them to be correct without adjudicating on disputed questions of fact or evidentiary value. (Para 12, 13)
(B) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The power of superintendence is not appellate and cannot be used to correct every error or substitute a plausible view of the lower court unless there is a grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse of law. (Para 9, 10, 11)
(C) Commercial Dispute - Intellectual Property Rights - Suits for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including copyright infringement and passing off, fall within the ambit of "commercial disputes" under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. (Para 12)
(D) Defense vs. Cause of Action - Rejection of Plaint - Pleas regarding the invalidity of assignment deeds, res judicata, or limitation that require evidence are defenses to the suit and do not demonstrate an absence of cause of action at the threshold. (Para 15, 20)
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- intellectual property
-
limitation
- continuing cause of action (Para 17)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contended no cause of action, lack of territorial jurisdiction, res judicata, and non-commercial dispute. Respondents opposed. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only plaint averments and documents considered; defences cannot be adjudicated at threshold. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Order VII Rule 11 CPC test: whether plaint averments taken as true disclose a cause of action; defences require trial. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Petition dismissed as no jurisdictional error in refusing rejection; all rights and contentions left open for trial. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 )
6. What is the scope of Article 227 in commercial suits where revision is barred?
Jurisdiction under Article 227 is very sparingly exercised in commercial suits where revision is barred, to avoid negating legislative intent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
7. What is the test for rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC?
The court must examine plaint averments and documents as true; if they disclose a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Can a court consider defendants' documents or defences at the Order VII Rule 11 stage?
No. Only the plaint and plaintiff's documents are considered; defences and documents of the defendant are not relevant at that stage. (Para 15 , 20 )
9. When can a suit be rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII Rule 11?
A suit can be rejected only if ex facie barred by limitation based on plaint averments; continuing cause of action prevents rejection. (Para 17 , 21 )
10. Does the validity of a copyright assignment deed affect rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11?
No. The validity of an assignment deed is a triable issue and cannot be examined at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. (Para 15 , 17 )
J U D G E M E N T
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
CM 251/2026 (Condonation of delay)
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same stands allowed. The delay in re-filing the petition stands condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM 249-250/2026 (for exemption)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Compliance be made within a period of 1 week from today.
3. The applications stand disposed of.
CM(M)-IPD 51/2026 and CM 248/2026
1. Heard, Mr. Shikhil Suri and Mr. Amit Sibbal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondents respectively.
2. The petitioner, vide the instant petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to challenge the order dated 04.06.2026 [„Impugned Order‟] passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court-05), South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 1096/2025 titled ‘Guruji Ka Ashram Trust v. P J Sikand and Ors.’, qua the dismissal of his application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [„CPC‟].
3. It be noted that vide the said order, three applications were decided by the concerned Court. One is the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff, another is the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1, and the third one is the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1. Against the directions allowing the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the petitioner has already availed the remedy of filing FAO (COMM) 168/2026, which is sub judice before the Division Bench of this Court. The present adjudication, therefore, confines itself only to the dismissal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and the prayer clause of the petition is also, in terms, restricted to that extent.
4. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff, claims to be a registered public charitable trust established by Late Shri Nirmal Singh Ji Maharaj, popularly known as “Guruji”, instituted the aforesaid suit on 26.12.2025 seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction, damages and other ancillary reliefs. The suit is founded on allegations of
(a) infringement of copyright in certain photographs/swaroops of Guruji, stated to have been assigned to the plaintiff by Shri Raghu Rai vide a Copyright assignment deed dated 13.02.2024;
(b) passing off and misrepresentation by the use of the name “Guruji” and the operation of a structure styled as “Guruji Ka Darbar”;
(c) infringement of copyright in the architectural work of the plaintiff‟s “Bade Mandir”, which is alleged to have been imitated in the structure raised by the petitioner at Village 12Z, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan; and
(d) solicitation of donations in the name of Guruji.
5. By the impugned order, the concerned Court dealt with the said application and dismissed the same. It is also relevant to note that, on the same date, the concerned Court framed issues in the suit which, inter alia, encompass the questions of locus standi (Issue No. 2), disclosure of cause of action (Issue No. 3), validity of the assignment deed (Issue Nos. 7 and 8), territorial jurisdiction (Issue No. 9), res judicata (Issue No. 10), the commercial nature of the dispute (Issue No. 11), valuation (Issue No. 12) and limitation (Issue No. 14), and listed the suit for plaintiff‟s evidence.
6. Mr. Suri, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has taken this Court through the various aspects of the matter and has reiterated all his submissions which were made before the concerned Court. He contends that the concerned Court has failed to apply the correct test under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC and that the assignment deed dated 13.02.2024 post-dates the complaint lodged on behalf of the plaintiff in the year 2023, which culminated in FIR No. 0572/2023, and therefore could not have conferred any right to sue in respect of the ac
