CIVIL APPEAL 26 of 2025

$~55*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI

+CM(M)-IPD 8/2025

KHILENDER GUPTA TRADING ASBOBBY ENTERPRISES

.....Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Advocate withMr. Shantnu Aggarwal & Ms. SakshiGarg, Advocates.

versus

HIND FOOD PRODUCT & ORS......Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSALO R R25.03.2025

CM 61/2025 (exemption from filing originals, translated and certifiedcopies of the document)

1.Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CM 62/2025 (exemption from filing clear, paginated, proper margins andtrue typed copies of documents)

3.Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

4.Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CM 63/2025 (seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis)

5.For the reasons stated in the application, the petitioner is granted liberty

to file lengthy synopsis.

6.The application is disposed of.

CM 64/2025 (exemption from advance service to the respondents)

CM(M)-IPD 8/2025

This is digitally signed order.

7.Since the respondents/ defendants in the suit are yet to be served andthe petitioner/plaintiff is seeking appointment of Local Commissioner, thepetitioner is granted exemption from effecting advance service on therespondents.

8.The application is disposed of.CM(M)-IPD 8/2025

9.The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 17[th]March, 2025,passed by the District Judge (Commercial), Shahdara District, KarkardoomaCourts, Delhi in CS(COMM) No. 26/2025, whereby the Commercial Courthad issued court notice to third party i.e. Mr. Rakesh Kumar.

10.Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersubmits that the said suit was filed in January, 2025 and was listed before theCommercial Court on 13[th]January, 2025, along with an application seekingex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendants/ respondents as well asappointment of Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants/respondents to seize and make an inventory of the infringing products.

11.It is submitted that there have been six dates of hearing in the suit andtill date no effective orders in the aforesaid applications have been passed.

12.In the impugned order, while making reference to another legalproceedings between the petitioner/plaintiff and third party regarding themark which is the subject matter of the present suit, court notice had beenissued to Mr. Rakesh Kumar, who is party against whom the petitioner isinvolved in the other litigations.

13.I am informed that the matter was listed before the Commercial Courttoday and since the court notice could not be served on Mr. Rakesh Kumar,

CM(M)-IPD 8/2025

fresh notice has been ordered, which is returnable for 21[st]April, 2025.

14.I am in agreement with the submissions of the petitioner that there wasno occasion for the Commercial Court to issue court notice to third partyi.e. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, at this stage. In the suit before the Commercial Court,admittedly, no cause of action has been pleaded against Mr. Rakesh Kumar,nor has any relief been claimed against him by the petitioner.

15.The cause of action for filing the present suit was only against therespondents, who are the defendants in the suit and who are allegedlyinfringing the registered trademark of the petitioner.

16.In view of the above, the impugned order is unsustainable and is setaside.

17.Considerable time has elapsed since the present suit along withapplications for seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction and appointment of aLocal Commissioner were filed, in which urgent reliefs are sought.Accordingly, the Commercial Court shall consider and pass an order in theaforesaid two applications filed on behalf of the petitioner/ plaintiff on thenext date of hearing.

18.The suit along with the aforesaid two applications shall be listed beforethe Commercial Court on 7[th]April, 2025.

19.The petition is disposed of.

MARCH 25, 2025

AMIT BANSAL, J

CM(M)-IPD 8/2025