Rashi Santosh Soni Vs Mr. Rajesh Sharma.

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Dismissal of IP Suit Passed Over Local Commissioner's Additional Site Visit

[Case Title] : Rashi Santosh Soni Vs Mr. Rajesh Sharma.

Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026

Case No.: RFA(COMM) 695/2025

Neutral Citation : 2026:DHC:936-DB

[Court Name] : High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellants filed a commercial suit alleging copyright and design infringement regarding Tower Fans. The trial court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure. The Local Commissioner visited two premises of the respondent, although the initial order directed a visit to only one premises. Consequently, the commercial court dismissed the entire suit, holding the plaintiffs' conduct fraudulent and imposing monetary penalties.

Dispute before Court

Whether a commercial suit can be dismissed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, solely because a court-appointed Local Commissioner visited an additional premises not explicitly specified in the initial commission order.

Reasoning of Judge

The High Court observed that there is no provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, authorizing the dismissal of a suit due to an overreach or additional site visit by a Local Commissioner. The lower court made severe findings of fraud and collusion against the plaintiffs, their counsel, and the Local Commissioner without any supporting evidence or giving them an opportunity to show cause. The Local Commissioner acted with propriety, as she refrained from seizing goods at the unauthorized location precisely because she lacked explicit authorization. Courts must exercise circumspection before making adverse remarks against practicing counsel.

Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the commercial court's order, expunged all adverse findings and penalties, and restored the commercial suit to its original position for further proceedings.

One Important legal principle held in the case

A civil suit cannot be dismissed without statutory authorization under the Code of Civil Procedure merely because a Local Commissioner visited an additional site, and courts must not render unsubstantiated findings of collusion or fraud against counsel without giving them an opportunity to be heard.

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

# Analytical Legal Article

## Introduction:

The relationship between procedural directives and substantive justice lies at the very heart of civil litigation. In intellectual property disputes, the appointment of a Local Commissioner is a routine yet critical mechanism to preserve evidence of alleged infringement before it can be altered or destroyed. However, procedural irregularities occurring during the execution of a local commission should not automatically derail the main suit unless statutory provisions explicitly dictate such a remedy. A recent judgment of the High Court of Delhi highlights the necessity for judicial restraint and adherence to procedural statutes, holding that lower courts cannot summarily dismiss a suit or penalize legal representatives over an procedural deviation by a court officer.

## Factual and Procedural Background:

The dispute arose out of a commercial suit filed by the plaintiffs alleging infringement of their copyright and registered design rights in relation to Tower Fans. On 1 June 2024, the commercial court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the premises of the defendants to effect search and seizure.

During the execution of the commission, the Local Commissioner visited two premises belonging to the defendants, whereas the specific order appointing her had explicitly authorized a visit to only one designated premises. Upon reviewing the Local Commissioner's report, the trial court took severe exception to this additional visit. On 15 November 2025, the commercial court concluded that the plaintiffs, their legal counsel, and the Local Commissioner had acted in collusion to execute an unauthorized search. Holding this act to be fraudulent and scandalous, the commercial court dismissed the suit entirely and imposed heavy monetary costs on the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this dismissal and the adverse remarks, the plaintiffs approached the High Court of Delhi in appeal.

## Dispute Before the Court

around whether a commercial suit can be summarily terminated due to an irregularity during the execution of a court commission. The primary legal issue before the appellate court was whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contains any statutory provision that permits the outright dismissal of a lawsuit on the ground that a Local Commissioner visited an additional location not explicitly stated in the commission order.

The defendants contended that the plaintiffs and their legal team had manipulated the execution process by exceeding the scope of the judicial order, which amounted to fraud and abuse of the judicial process. Conversely, the plaintiffs argued that the dismissal was wholly unauthorized by law, that no opportunity of hearing was granted prior to making severe allegations of misconduct, and that the Local Commissioner had acted in good faith without exceeding actual seizure limits.

## Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

In analyzing the trial court's decision, the appellate court scrutinized the statutory boundaries of civil procedure. The court noted that there exists no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, that empowers a court to dismiss a substantive suit merely because a Local Commissioner visits premises outside the literal command of the commission order. When questioned, even the counsel for the defendants failed to point to any rule or statutory authority supporting such a drastic remedy.

The court observed that judicial decisions concerning frivolous litigation or suppressed facts were inappropriately applied by the trial judge to a situation involving an overextended site visit by an officer of the court. Furthermore, the court expressed serious concern over the unsubstantiated findings of collusion and misconduct made against the practicing attorneys and the Local Commissioner. Returning findings of professional misconduct or fraud without citing a shred of supporting material—and without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity to be heard—violates basic principles of natural justice.

The court emphasized that the Bar and the Bench are equal partners in the administration of justice, requiring mutual respect and judicial circumspection. On the factual front, the court observed that the Local Commissioner had actually demonstrated propriety. Although she identified potentially infringing goods at the second location, she refrained from seizing them precisely because her written authorization did not explicitly cover that site. Consequently, the trial court's inference of fraud and collusion was completely unfounded.

## Final Decision of the Court

The High Court held that the order of the commercial court could not be sustained either on facts or in law. The appellate court quashed and set aside the order dismissing the suit and expunged all adverse remarks, observations, and findings of collusion made against the plaintiffs, their legal counsel, and the Local Commissioner. The commercial suit was restored to its original position on the files of the trial court, with directions for the parties to appear before the commercial court on 25 February 2026 to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.

## Point of Law Settled

This judgment re-establishes the fundamental principle that procedural deviations occurring during the execution of a local commission cannot serve as a ground for the summary dismissal of a civil suit in the absence of explicit statutory authority under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It reaffirms that trial courts must operate strictly within statutory boundaries and cannot invent punitive measures such as suit dismissals for procedural overreaches by court-appointed commissions. Additionally, the ruling reinforces the rule that courts must exercise extreme caution and strictly follow principles of natural justice before making adverse findings or leveling allegations of collusion against practicing advocates and court-appointed commissioners.

Title of the Case: Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors.

Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026

Case Number: RFA(COMM) 695/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:936-DB

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

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

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

Headnote of the Judgment:

Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. v. Mr. Rajesh Sharma & Ors., RFA(COMM) 695/2025, High Court of Delhi. The appellants filed a commercial suit alleging copyright and design infringement regarding Tower Fans. The commercial court dismissed the suit and imposed costs, holding that the Local Commissioner, in collusion with plaintiffs, visited an additional unauthorized site. On appeal, the High Court held that no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, permits suit dismissal due to an unauthorized visit by a Local Commissioner. The Court found no evidence of collusion, noted the lack of a show-cause opportunity, expunged all adverse remarks against counsel and the Local Commissioner, set aside the impugned order, and restored the commercial suit to its original position.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Delhi High Court, Local Commissioner, Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Suit Dismissal, Intellectual Property Law, Copyright Infringement, Design Infringement, Ex Parte Injunction, Search and Seizure, Commercial Court, Natural Justice, Opportunity of Hearing, Legal Ethics, Judicial Restraint, Adverse Remarks Expunged, Professional Misconduct, Procedural Law, Civil Procedure Code 1908, Commercial Suits Act, Tower Fan Infringement, High Court Appeal, Trial Court Overreach, Legal Practice Delhi, IP Litigation India, Advocate Case Law, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

 1. Delhi High Court Restores IP Suit Dismissed Over Local Commissioner Site Visit

 2. CPC Does Not Allow Suit Dismissal for Local Commissioner Overreach: Delhi HC

 3. Delhi High Court Expunges Unsubstantiated Collusion Findings Against Advocates

 4. Can a Civil Suit Be Dismissed if a Local Commissioner Visits the Wrong Site?

 5. Delhi HC Rebukes Commercial Court for Arbitrary Suit Dismissal and Costs

 6. Scope of Local Commissioner Powers in Intellectual Property Infringement Suits

 7. Natural Justice Mandatory Before Making Adverse Remarks Against Lawyers: Delhi HC

 8. High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Dismissing Copyright & Design Suit

 9. Procedural Irregularities vs Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Ruling

 10. Delhi HC Clarifies Limits of Judicial Powers in Dismissing Commercial Suits