Back
2026 Supreme(Guj) 1125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ, D.N.RAY, J.
Cryogas Equipment Private Limited And Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Inox India Private Limited And Ors. – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 4648 Of 2026
Decided On : 09-04-2026
For The Petitioner:Mr Kamal Trivedi, Sr. Advocate With Mr Shalin Mehta, Sr. Advocate With Mr C B Upadhyaya With Mr Vinay Bairagara
For The Respondent:Mr Mihir Joshi, Sr. Advocate With Mr Rashmin Khandekar With Mr Dhiren Karania With Mr Rudram Trivedi, Mr. Aadit R Sanjanwala
Disclosure of evidence collected by a court-appointed commissioner during the pre-trial stage is improper if it enables a party to construct its case prematurely or exposes confidential trade secrets. Access must be subject to procedural rigor and judicial scrutiny once issues are framed.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XXVI, Rules 9 and 10 - Order XXXIX, Rule 7 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - Infringement of copyright - Disclosure of data collected by Court Commissioner - Whether a party is entitled to receive copies of electronic data collected by a court-appointed commissioner before the framing of issues. The object of appointing a Commissioner is to preserve and protect potentially infringing evidence at an interim stage, not to assist a party in building its case. Providing such material before the precise nature of the dispute is established through the framing of issues confers an unfair procedural advantage and violates principles of fairness. (Paras 25, 30, 35)
(B) Evidence - Confidentiality and Trade Secrets - While evidence collected by a Commissioner forms part of the record, it must be subject to scrutiny regarding its confidential nature. Access to non-confidential material from such reports should only be granted after considering the stage of the suit and ensuring the rights of the opposite party are not prejudiced by the premature disclosure of business trade secrets. (Paras 31, 37)
Facts of the case:
A party initiated a suit regarding copyright infringement and sought the production of electronic data in a physical storage device previously collected by a court-appointed commissioner. The lower court granted the request for printouts of this data. The opposing party challenged this order in the appellate court, arguing that the disclosure was premature, lacked proper scrutiny regarding the confidentiality of the records, and effectively allowed the opposing party to build its case without having framed the relevant issues.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lower court erred in directing the supply of copies of the electronic data at an early procedural stage without assessing claims of confidentiality. It emphasized that discovery process must be balanced and that the court-appointed commissioner's report should be used to elucidate disputed facts as determined by the court, rather than as a tool for a party to conduct a fishing expedition for evidence.
Issues: Whether the disclosure of data gathered during a local inspection by a court-appointed commissioner is permissible at a pre-trial stage, and whether such disclosure constitutes an improper assistance to a litigant in the absence of defined issues and safeguards for proprietary secrets.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that supplying copies of evidence collected by a commissioner prior to the framing of issues is procedurally improper as it allows a party to construct its case prematurely. Any access to such data must be carefully regulated to excise trade secrets and should only occur when the trial stage permits the confrontation of the commissioner’s report.
Result: Petition allowed; the lower court's order was set aside with directions to proceed with the suit by framing issues before considering the application for disclosure.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context of the appointment of the court commissioner and the origin of the dispute. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding the disclosure of evidence collected by the court commissioner prior to framing of issues. (Para 2 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. court commissioner's reports form part of the record but must protect trade secrets and confidentiality. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. premature disclosure of incriminating evidence may unfairly assist a party before issues are settled. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 5. final order setting aside the impugned instruction while directing expeditious disposal of the underlying suit. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
JUDGMENT :
SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ.
1. The short controversy in the present petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is pertaining to the validity of the order dated 17.03.2026 whereby the application of the respondent no.1 herein, namely the plaintiff seeking copies/prints of the contents of the pen drive submitted by the Court Commissioner, has been partly allowed. The operative portion of the order impugned reads as under :-
“1. Present application seeking copies / prints of the contents of Pendrive submitted by Court Commissioner is partly allowed.
2. Mr. S.K.Gohil, System Officer, District Court Vadodara is hereby appointed as Court Commissioner to only take print outs of the data of plaintiff stored in pendrive (Mark-18/16) in presence of both the parties and hand over to plaintiff.
3. Plaintiff is directed to deposit a total sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as remuneration towards Court Commissioner before the Nazir, District Court Vadodara which will be released in favour of Court Commissioner after submission of report.
2. Amongst various submissions made by the learned Senior counsels for the petitioners to assail the order impugned, the primary grounds of challenge are that the Commercial Court has erred in providing the printouts of the data, allegedly that of the plaintiff stored in the pen drive, inasmuch as, the data contains confidential information re: trade practices of the plaintiff and that the suit is at the primary stage of framing of issues. At this stage, providing material collected by the Court Commissioner from the computer of the defendants would amount to assisting plaintiff to build its evidence, by the Court.
3. The Court Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the Commercial Court and the report was submitted at Exhibits ‘52’ and ‘61’ along with the pen drive at Mark 18/16, containing the data stored in the computer of defendants no. 1 and 2, the petitioners herein. Even vide order dated 24.09.2019, the parties were permitted to view the contents of the pen drive on the court’s computer.
4. The stage at which the Court Commissioner was appointed was the stage of consideration of the interim injunction application, which has later been decided by the trial court. The challenge to the order of grant of interim injunction restraining the petitioners from using the respondent’s drawing and confidential information, is pending adjudication in F/Appeal from Order No. 6098 of 2026.
5. It is contended by the petitioners herein that the order of interim injunction does not even refer to the inspection report of the Court Commissioner in its analysis, which fact itself indicates that the alleged contents of the pen drive have no bearing on the merits of the case, at this stage.
6. It is submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners herein that the pen drive is part of the Court record and hence, possibility of tampering or loss of the data is purely speculative.
7. The plaintiff/respondent no.1 herein, however, moved an application at Exhibit ‘98’ seeking copies/print outs of the contents of the pen drive submitted by the Court Commissioner
