In an appeal filed before the Delhi High Court regarding the dismissal of a suit by the Commercial Court on the sole ground that the Local Commissioner had visited two premises of the respondent, even though she was directed to visit one premise, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside the impugned order and restored the subject suit before the Commercial Court to its original position.
The appellants had filed a suit before the District Judge (Commercial) -02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, alleging infringement of their copyright and design rights for Tower Fans by the respondents. On 01-06-2024, the Commercial Court granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of the appellants and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the respondents’ premises for the purpose of effecting a search and seizure.
The Court noted that the impugned order dated 15-11-2025 mentioned that the Local Commissioner, a practicing advocate, visited premises other than those mentioned in the order. Further, the Court noted the reference made by the Commercial Court to judgments dealing with creating illusory causes of action by suppression of material, and could not ascertain how the said decisions were of any relevance in the present matter.
The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained and stated that it was unaware of any provision under which a suit can be dismissed because the Local Commissioner visited premises other than the ones mentioned in the order. The Court noted that the impugned order contained findings regarding collusion between the Local Commissioner and the appellant’s counsel without any supportive material, and said that such findings were extremely serious, especially since they were against practicing counsel.
The Court expressed its unhappiness with the findings and stated that mutual respect and concern between the bar and the bench are essential to ensure that the stream of justice flows on, clear and unsullied. For lack of basis to support the conclusion drawn by the Commercial Court, the Court expunged the said findings.
Further, the Court opined that the Local Commissioner acted with utmost propriety and that it is normal for a Court to authorise the Local Commissioner not only to visit the premises mentioned in the plaint but also any other premises in which infringing goods may be present. The Court stated that since such additional authorisation was not present in the order, the Local Commissioner did not seize the infringing goods found at the premises.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and set it aside, restoring the appellants’ suit to its original position. The same was directed to be listed before the Commercial Court on 25-02-2026 for further proceedings.
Appearances:
For Appellants – Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Ms. Jaspreet S Kapur, Ms. Shweta, Mr. Wasim Ansari
For Respondents – None
