Application To Be Duly Registered At Filing Stage; Registration Number Must Be Reflected In Cause List: Delhi High Court Issues Practice Directions For District Courts
The Delhi High Court has also asked the District Courts to ensure that judicial orders passed by them reflect the appearance of parties or counsel or, if no one appears, notes to that effect.
Justice C Hari Shankar, Justice Om Prakash Shukla, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has issued practice directions to the District Courts to make sure that all the applications, at the time of filing, are duly registered and the registration number of the applications is reflected in the cause list when the matter is placed before the Court.
The High Court has also asked the District Courts to ensure that judicial orders passed by them reflect the appearance of parties or counsel or, if no one appears, notes to that effect.
The appeal before the High Court emanated from a suit instituted by the respondent against the appellant, alleging that the appellant was passing off its goods as those of the respondent by use of the marks THUKRAL KRANTI, THUKRAL, KS THUKRAL and KS THUKRAL KRANTI. The suit also prayed for a decree for the delivery up of goods, damages, rendition of accounts and the like.
While dealing with the matter, the Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla noted how in several cases before District Courts, interlocutory applications and other applications filed in pending proceedings do not reflect the application numbers. The Bench thus enumerated the following practice directions to be followed by all District Courts:
- All applications, at the time of filing, would be duly registered.
- The registration number of the applications would be reflected in the cause list when the matter is placed before the Court.
- Pleadings in the applications would be required to cite the concerned Application Number.
- Orders passed on the said applications should also reflect the Application Numbers in which the orders are passed.
“We request all the learned District Courts to ensure compliance with these directions so that it facilitates reference to the applications when they are dealt with at the appellate or revisional stage”, it stated.
Advocate Vivek Ranjan Tiwary represented the Appellant.
Factual Background
Various applications were filed by the appellant (defendant) before the Commercial Court, contesting the respondent's plaint. Among these were applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act and Section 10 of the CPC. These applications were dismissed by the Commercial Court.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Commercial Court had not just failed to address the aspect of goodwill but had also failed to record any findings on the merits of the respondent’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. “The learned Commercial Court has merely adverted to the appellant’s application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC. There is no finding on merits whatsoever”, it added.
As per the Bench, the impugned judgment was completely unreasoned. The Commercial Court had not adverted to any of the aspects, either to a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable loss, which are sine-qua-non before any injunctive order can be passed under Order XXXIX of the CPC, except for stating that the order of the predecessor Court had made out a case in that regard.
Considering that neither of the parties had registrations under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Bench held that the suit could only be considered on passing off. “The three indispensable ingredients for a claim of passing off to succeed are the existence of goodwill on the part of the plaintiff, prior to adoption of the mark by the defendant, misrepresentation by the plaintiff and consequent damages to the defendant”, it explained, while adding that none of these aspects found any reference in the impugned order of the Commercial Court.
Thus, quashing the impugned order of the Commercial Court and allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered, “The applications of the respondent under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and of the appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC stand remitted to the learned Commercial Court for consideration afresh.”
Issuing practice directions to the District Courts regarding the numbering of applications, the Bench mentioned, “We also request the learned District Courts to ensure that judicial orders passed by them reflect the appearance of parties or learned counsel or, in case no one appears, notes to that effect.”
Cause Title: Suresh Sharma v. Krishan Lal Thukral (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:855-DB)
Appearance
Appellant: Advocates Vivek Ranjan Tiwary, Amber Jain, Sarath J Prakash