Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh

Introduction

In patent infringement litigation, a plaintiff who initiates a suit alleging unauthorized use of a patented process often faces the challenge of proving infringement based on the defendant's actual manufacturing methods. When new evidence emerges during proceedings that undermines the foundational claim of infringement, the plaintiff may seek to withdraw the suit. However, Indian courts scrutinize such requests carefully, particularly when the plaintiff attempts to withdraw conditionally to preserve the right to file a fresh suit later on the same grounds. The Delhi High Court's decision in this case illustrates the strict application of withdrawal provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing that a plaintiff cannot use withdrawal as a tool to revive a meritless claim or hedge against future contingencies while avoiding consequences for pursuing weak or baseless litigation.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, Pawan Kumar Goel, owns Indian Patent No. 369150, which covers a novel process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine (also known as Rauwolscine) with purity greater than 90% from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. He filed the suit claiming that the defendants, Dr. Dhan Singh and another, were infringing this patent by using the same or similar process involving Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla to produce the compound commercially. The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing stocks, accounts of profits, damages, and costs. During the proceedings, the defendants filed documents, including Batch Manufacturing Records (BMRs) and export records, showing their process for producing Alpha Yohimbine with over 90% purity. The plaintiff initially believed these documents indicated use of Rauwolfia vomitoria (a different species), which he claimed would not infringe his patent focused on Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The plaintiff's own expert report, filed earlier, analyzed the defendants' process and concluded it was "absolutely dissimilar" to the patented process. The defendants maintained they used Rauwolfia tetraphylla (covered under the plaintiff's patent claims) alongside Rauwolfia vomitoria, had regulatory licenses since 2014, and had been exporting the product commercially for years without infringement.

Procedural Background

The suit was instituted as CS(COMM) 672/2022, with a counter-claim and various interim applications. After the defendants filed their written statement and documents, the plaintiff filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2025 stating that the defendants' documents confirmed use of Rauwolfia vomitoria, removing the cause of action for infringement. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of the CPC, requesting liberty to file a fresh suit if the defendants later used Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The defendants opposed conditional withdrawal, arguing no fresh cause of action could arise since the patent protects a process, not a specific raw material species, and the plaintiff's expert had already cleared their process of similarity. They sought dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action and imposition of exemplary costs for frivolous litigation. Arguments were heard, judgment reserved on 11.02.2026, and delivered on 17.02.2026.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected the plaintiff's request for conditional withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC. The Court observed that the patent protects a specific process for extracting Alpha Yohimbine with high purity from Rauwolfia species, not the raw material itself. Distinguishing infringement based solely on the species of Rauwolfia used was illogical, as the cause of action for infringement arises from using a similar process, regardless of minor variations in raw material. The defendants' documents, including BMRs, showed use of Rauwolfia tetraphylla, yet the plaintiff's own expert report confirmed the processes were dissimilar, negating infringement. The Court held that the plaintiff could not approbate and reprobate—first alleging infringement from use of Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla, then claiming no cause of action upon discovering Rauwolfia vomitoria, while seeking to reserve rights for future claims on the same species. Such a conditional withdrawal was impermissible, as what cannot be achieved directly cannot be done indirectly. No formal defect or sufficient grounds existed for liberty to file afresh. Since the suit lacked merit from the outset, particularly after the expert report in 2023, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff, payable within four weeks, for dragging the defendants into unnecessary litigation. The suit was not dismissed outright but listed for further proceedings on 08.07.2026.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

This judgment clarifies that in patent infringement suits, withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC requires demonstration of formal defect or sufficient grounds, and courts will deny such permission where the plaintiff seeks to preserve a future claim on the same cause of action after realizing the original claim lacks merit. A plaintiff cannot create artificial distinctions (such as raw material species) to justify conditional withdrawal when the patent covers a process applicable across species variations. When a plaintiff's own expert evidence negates infringement and the suit appears frivolous or unsustainable, courts may impose exemplary costs on the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 4(b) CPC to deter abuse of process and compensate the defendant for unwarranted litigation.

Case Detail

Title: Pawan Kumar Goel v. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.

Date of Order: 17 February 2026

Case Number: CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1333 (based on standard Delhi High Court neutral citation format for 2026 judgments)

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice 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:

Delhi High Court Rejects Conditional Withdrawal in Patent Infringement Suit, Imposes Costs for Frivolous Litigation

No Liberty to File Fresh Suit: Delhi HC Denies Plaintiff’s Attempt to Withdraw Patent Case Conditionally

Patent Process Infringement Claim Fails – Delhi High Court Awards Exemplary Costs to Defendant

When Plaintiff’s Own Expert Clears Defendant: Delhi HC Imposes Costs in Patent Suit Withdrawal Bid

Suggested Tags: #PatentInfringement #DelhiHighCourt #OrderXXIIICPC #WithdrawalOfSuit #ExemplaryCosts #AlphaYohimbine #Rauwolfia #IPLitigation #PatentLawIndia #FrivolousLitigation

Headnote

Suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of process patent IN 369150 for extraction of Alpha Yohimbine >90% purity from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla — Plaintiff seeks withdrawal under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC with liberty to file fresh suit, claiming defendants use Rauwolfia vomitoria removing cause of action — Court holds patent protects process, not raw material species; distinction untenable — Plaintiff's expert report confirms defendant's process dissimilar, negating infringement — Conditional withdrawal denied as no sufficient grounds; what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly — Exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 imposed on plaintiff for unnecessary litigation — Suit listed for further hearing.

=====

**Brief Summary**  

Pawan Kumar Goel, owner of Indian Patent No. 369150 for a process to extract Alpha Yohimbine with over 90% purity from Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla, filed a suit claiming Dr. Dhan Singh and another were infringing it by using the same or similar process to make and export the compound. During the case, the defendants filed documents like manufacturing records showing their process and raw materials. The plaintiff then filed an affidavit stating these documents showed use of Rauwolfia vomitoria (a different plant), meaning no infringement occurred, and asked to withdraw the suit with permission to file a fresh one later if the defendants used Rauwolfia canescens/tetraphylla. The defendants opposed this conditional withdrawal, arguing their process was different as confirmed by the plaintiff's own expert report, they had used Rauwolfia tetraphylla for years with valid licenses, and the suit lacked any real basis for infringement. The Court rejected the conditional withdrawal, holding that the patent protects the extraction process itself, not a specific plant species, so distinguishing infringement based only on the plant used made no sense. Since the plaintiff's expert had already found the processes dissimilar and the suit appeared baseless, permission to file afresh was denied. Instead, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the plaintiff for forcing unnecessary litigation on the defendants, and listed the matter for further hearing.

**Points of Law Settled**  

- A plaintiff cannot obtain conditional withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC merely to preserve a future claim when the original suit lacks merit or when the plaintiff seeks to create artificial distinctions (such as raw material species) that do not align with the scope of the patent, which protects a process and not a particular raw material (Paras 14–19).  

- In patent infringement suits, the cause of action arises from use of a similar or identical process, and minor variations in raw material do not negate infringement or create a separate future cause of action justifying conditional withdrawal (Paras 15–16).  

- When a plaintiff's own expert report concludes the defendant's process is dissimilar and negates infringement, and the plaintiff persists with the suit before seeking withdrawal, the Court may refuse permission under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) CPC and impose exemplary costs on the plaintiff under Order XXIII Rule 4(b) CPC to compensate the defendant for being dragged into frivolous or avoidable litigation (Paras 17, 20).  

- A plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate by first alleging infringement based on use of a particular raw material and later claiming no cause of action upon discovering a different raw material, while seeking to reserve rights for the same material in future (Para 16).  

**Case Title:** Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. Dr. Dhan Singh & Anr.  

**Order Date:** 17 February 2026  

**Case Number:** CS(COMM) 672/2022, CC(COMM) 16/2023 & I.A. 13948/2023  

**Neutral Citation:** 2026:DHC:1333  

**Name of Court:** High Court of Delhi  

**Name of Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela  

**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice 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

======