Pawan Kumar Goel Vs Dhan Singh

Introduction: The Delhi High Court has sent a clear message to litigants in intellectual property matters: you cannot withdraw a patent infringement suit in a way that keeps the door open for filing the same case again just in case the defendant changes its process in the future. In this ruling, the court refused the plaintiff’s request for conditional withdrawal and instead imposed costs on him for dragging the defendant into avoidable litigation. The judgment carefully balances the plaintiff’s right to withdraw his own suit with the need to prevent abuse of court process and harassment of the opposite party.

Factual Background: Pawan Kumar Goel owns an Indian patent for a process to extract Alpha Yohimbine of high purity from a particular species of the Rauwolfia plant. He believed that Dr. Dhan Singh and his company were using the same plant and the same process, and therefore filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, accounts and delivery up of infringing material. Later, after seeing the defendant’s export documents and manufacturing records, the plaintiff formed the view that the defendant was actually using a different species of Rauwolfia. On that basis he concluded there was no infringement and decided to withdraw the suit.

Procedural Background: The plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that the defendant’s product came from a different plant species and therefore did not infringe his patent. He requested the court to allow withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit in future if the defendant ever started using the specific plant covered by his patent. The defendant strongly opposed this conditional withdrawal. They placed on record their batch manufacturing records and licence documents to show they had been using the plant species mentioned in the patent for many years. They also pointed out that the plaintiff’s own expert had clearly stated that the defendant’s process was completely different from the patented process. The defendant argued that the entire suit was without any real cause of action and asked for exemplary costs.

Reasoning and Decision of Court: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela carefully examined the patent claims and found that the patent protects a process of extraction, not the plant species itself. The court observed that the plaintiff could not claim infringement only when one plant is used and say there is no infringement when another plant is used, because the patent is on the process, not on the raw material. The judge noted that the defendant had produced clear evidence showing use of the relevant plant species for years, yet the plaintiff’s own expert had already confirmed that the processes were dissimilar.

The court held that the plaintiff was trying to approbate and reprobate at the same time. He could not say there is no cause of action today and at the same time keep the right to file the same case tomorrow if the defendant does something different. Such a conditional withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action was not justified under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found no sufficient grounds for granting such liberty.

As a result, permission to withdraw with liberty was refused. The court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for putting the defendant through unnecessary litigation when his own expert report had already shown the processes were different. The suit was directed to be listed again for further proceedings.

Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment settles that a plaintiff in a patent infringement suit cannot seek withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit merely to keep a hypothetical future cause of action alive when the present suit itself lacks merit or when the plaintiff’s own evidence contradicts the infringement claim. The provision for withdrawal with liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC is not meant to allow a party to reserve the right to re-litigate the same dispute on a “wait and watch” basis. A party who files a suit must stand by its pleadings and cannot blow hot and cold. Courts will impose costs where a litigant drags the other side into court on a weak or inconsistent case.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr. Date of Order: 17 February 2026 Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022 Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1333 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Suggested Titles for the Article

1. Delhi High Court Refuses “Wait and Watch” Withdrawal in Patent Suit, Awards Costs
2. No Future Reservation of Cause of Action: Key Patent Ruling by Delhi HC
3. Plaintiff Cannot Blow Hot and Cold in Patent Litigation: Delhi High Court
4. Costs Imposed on Patent Owner for Frivolous Conditional Withdrawal Attempt

Suitable Tags Patent Infringement, Delhi High Court, Order XXIII CPC, Withdrawal of Suit, Costs in IP Cases, Patent Process, Intellectual Property Litigation, Frivolous Suit, IP Adjutor, Indian Patent Law,

Headnote of Article In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to allow conditional withdrawal of a patent infringement suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action in future. The court held that such liberty cannot be granted where the plaintiff’s own evidence shows no infringement and where the plaintiff is attempting to keep the dispute alive on a hypothetical future change in the defendant’s process. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff for unnecessary litigation.

====

Pawan Kumar Goel filed a commercial suit claiming that Dr. Dhan Singh was infringing his patent for a process to extract a high-purity chemical from a specific plant species. After reviewing the defendant’s manufacturing records, the plaintiff concluded there was no infringement because the defendant was using a different plant species, and filed an affidavit seeking to withdraw the suit. He requested withdrawal with liberty under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC to file a fresh suit in future if the defendant ever used the patented plant. The defendant opposed the conditional withdrawal, producing records showing they had been using the relevant plant for years and pointing out that the plaintiff’s own expert had already confirmed the processes were completely different. The court refused the conditional withdrawal, holding that the plaintiff cannot keep a future right to sue on the same cause of action while admitting the present suit has no merit, and that such liberty requires sufficient grounds which were absent. The court imposed costs on the plaintiff for dragging the defendant into unnecessary litigation and directed the suit to proceed.

Law settled in the case:

A plaintiff cannot seek withdrawal of a patent suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action merely to preserve a hypothetical future infringement when the present suit lacks any real cause of action. Paras 14-19

Liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC is not available unless sufficient grounds are shown; Paras 18-19.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh: 17.02.2026:CS(COMM) 672/2022:2026:DHC:1333:Hon'ble Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

====