RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR. vs MR. RAJESH SHARMA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RFA(COMM) 695/2025, CM APPL. 77901/2025 & CM APPL. 79733/2025 RASHI SANTOSH SONI & ANR. .....Appellants Through: Ms. Archana Sahadeva, Ms. Jaspreet S Kapur, Ms. Shweta and Mr. Wasim Ansari, Advs. versus MR. RAJESH SHARMA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 03.02.2026 C.HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This is a somewhat peculiar case in which the learned Commercial Court has dismissed a suit on the sole ground that the Local Commissioner1 who was appointed in the matter had visited two premises of the respondent, though she was directed, by the order appointing her, to visit one. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs before the learned District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts2 in CS(Comm) 1 “LC” hereinafter 2 “learned Commercial Court” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT RFA(COMM) 695/2025 Page 1 of 6 KUMAR Signing Date:06.02.2026 12:55:22 667/20243. The suit alleged infringement, by the respondents, of copyright and design rights held by the appellants in respect of Tower Fans. 3. On 1 June 2024, the learned Commercial Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the appellants and against the respondents and appointed LCs to visit the premises of the respondents and effected search and seizure. 4. The order dated 15 November 2025 of the learned Commercial Court, under challenge in this appeal, notes that fact that the LC, who is a practicing advocate, visited premises other than those which she was required to visit as per the order appointing her. In this regard, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the following passages from the impugned judgment, thus: “To the utter surprise of t