Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a dispute where a company (the plaintiff) sued several defendants for spreading false news, making threatening WhatsApp messages and using the plaintiff’s trademark in a way that allegedly harmed its reputation. The plaintiff had already filed an earlier suit (the “First Suit”) concerning the same trademark issue and a police raid. In the present case the plaintiff asked the court to stop the defendants from further disparagement and to remove the online material. The court had to decide whether this new suit was permissible under the law that prevents filing two suits for the same cause of action.
The Delhi High Court recently dealt with a dispute where a company (the plaintiff) sued several defendants for spreading false news, making threatening WhatsApp messages and using the plaintiff’s trademark in a way that allegedly harmed its reputation. The plaintiff had already filed an earlier suit (the “First Suit”) concerning the same trademark issue and a police raid. In the present case the plaintiff asked the court to stop the defendants from further disparagement and to remove the online material. The court had to decide whether this new suit was permissible under the law that prevents filing two suits for the same cause of action.
Factual Background
The plaintiff manufactures products bearing the mark “3X”. The defendants, especially defendant 1, filed a criminal complaint that led police to raid the plaintiff’s distributor in Nashik. After the raid, several news articles and a YouTube video appeared, and defendant 1 also shared a threatening WhatsApp message that mentioned the plaintiff’s mark. The plaintiff claimed that these actions damaged its reputation and infringed its trademark. In the First Suit, the plaintiff had asked for an injunction to stop the defendants from threatening legal action over the 3X mark and for a declaration that such threats were unjustified. The court in that suit gave a preliminary finding that the plaintiff’s use of the 3X mark did not infringe the defendants’ 3P mark and restrained the defendants from issuing further threats.
The plaintiff manufactures products bearing the mark “3X”. The defendants, especially defendant 1, filed a criminal complaint that led police to raid the plaintiff’s distributor in Nashik. After the raid, several news articles and a YouTube video appeared, and defendant 1 also shared a threatening WhatsApp message that mentioned the plaintiff’s mark. The plaintiff claimed that these actions damaged its reputation and infringed its trademark. In the First Suit, the plaintiff had asked for an injunction to stop the defendants from threatening legal action over the 3X mark and for a declaration that such threats were unjustified. The court in that suit gave a preliminary finding that the plaintiff’s use of the 3X mark did not infringe the defendants’ 3P mark and restrained the defendants from issuing further threats.
Procedural Detail
While the First Suit was still pending, the plaintiff filed a second suit (the present plaint) seeking a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from publishing the news articles, the YouTube video and the WhatsApp messages, and to have the material taken down. The defendants argued that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says a plaintiff cannot bring a second suit for the same cause of action if the same relief could have been claimed in the first suit. The plaintiff argued that new events – such as the sharing of the YouTube video on 19 August 2025 and the continued circulation of the material on the internet – gave rise to a fresh cause of action.
While the First Suit was still pending, the plaintiff filed a second suit (the present plaint) seeking a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from publishing the news articles, the YouTube video and the WhatsApp messages, and to have the material taken down. The defendants argued that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says a plaintiff cannot bring a second suit for the same cause of action if the same relief could have been claimed in the first suit. The plaintiff argued that new events – such as the sharing of the YouTube video on 19 August 2025 and the continued circulation of the material on the internet – gave rise to a fresh cause of action.
Core Dispute
The central question before the court was whether the second suit was a fresh case based on new facts, or whether it was simply an attempt to re‑litigate matters already decided in the First Suit. The court also considered whether the plaintiff could have asked for the removal of the online material in the first suit and whether the continued presence of the articles and video created a continuous cause of action.
The central question before the court was whether the second suit was a fresh case based on new facts, or whether it was simply an attempt to re‑litigate matters already decided in the First Suit. The court also considered whether the plaintiff could have asked for the removal of the online material in the first suit and whether the continued presence of the articles and video created a continuous cause of action.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court
The court examined the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, which is meant to stop multiple lawsuits over the same set of facts. It recalled the Supreme Court decision in Gurbux Singh v. Bhura Lal (AIR 1964 SC 1810), which laid down three conditions for applying the rule: the second suit must be for the same cause of action, the plaintiff must have been entitled to more than one relief in the first suit, and the plaintiff must have omitted to claim that relief without the court’s permission. The court noted that the plaintiff was aware of the news articles and the YouTube video when the First Suit was filed, as shown by the documents attached to that suit (DOCUMENT‑20 and DOCUMENT‑21). The plaintiff had not asked for the removal of those materials in the first suit, even though the cause of action (the alleged defamation and trademark harm) was already present.
The court examined the provisions of Order II Rule 2 CPC, which is meant to stop multiple lawsuits over the same set of facts. It recalled the Supreme Court decision in Gurbux Singh v. Bhura Lal (AIR 1964 SC 1810), which laid down three conditions for applying the rule: the second suit must be for the same cause of action, the plaintiff must have been entitled to more than one relief in the first suit, and the plaintiff must have omitted to claim that relief without the court’s permission. The court noted that the plaintiff was aware of the news articles and the YouTube video when the First Suit was filed, as shown by the documents attached to that suit (DOCUMENT‑20 and DOCUMENT‑21). The plaintiff had not asked for the removal of those materials in the first suit, even though the cause of action (the alleged defamation and trademark harm) was already present.
The court also referred to Mohamad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian (1949 51 BomLR 9), which explains that a new suit is allowed only if the claim is substantially different. In this case, the only new fact was the forwarding of the video on 19 August 2025, which the court said could have been added to the First Suit by amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The court cited Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128) to stress that an amendment should not change the nature of the suit or introduce a new cause of action.
The plaintiff relied on the judgment in Ruchi Kalra (supra) and Bengal Waterproof (supra) to argue that a continuous breach gives a fresh cause of action each time the offending material is viewed or shared. The court accepted that the internet can create a continuing wrong, but held that the principle does not override the bar under Order II Rule 2 when the plaintiff already had the opportunity to seek relief in the earlier suit.
Decision
The court concluded that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because the plaintiff could have, and should have, sought the relief of taking down the media coverage and the YouTube video in the First Suit. The court dismissed the present plaint but gave the plaintiff liberty to amend the First Suit to include the later developments and the new defendants, in accordance with the law.
The court concluded that the second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 CPC because the plaintiff could have, and should have, sought the relief of taking down the media coverage and the YouTube video in the First Suit. The court dismissed the present plaint but gave the plaintiff liberty to amend the First Suit to include the later developments and the new defendants, in accordance with the law.
Concluding Note
The judgment reinforces the importance of bringing all related claims in one suit and using the amendment procedure when new facts emerge after the first filing. It also clarifies that while the internet can give rise to a continuous cause of action, that does not automatically allow a fresh suit when the same relief was available earlier.
The judgment reinforces the importance of bringing all related claims in one suit and using the amendment procedure when new facts emerge after the first filing. It also clarifies that while the internet can give rise to a continuous cause of action, that does not automatically allow a fresh suit when the same relief was available earlier.
Case Title: Castrol Limited Vs Sanjay Sonavane
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 946/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:946
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 946/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:946
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and 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 Publication
A Critical Analysis of Order II Rule 2 CPC in the Age of Digital Defamation
When New Media Meets Old Rules: The Delhi High Court’s Stance on Multiplicity of Suits
Continuous Online Harm versus Res Judicata: Lessons from CS(COMM) 946/2025
Amendment versus Fresh Suit: Navigating the Boundaries of Order II Rule 2 in Trademark Disputes
The Impact of Internet Publication on Cause of Action: Insights from the Delhi High Court Decision.
A Critical Analysis of Order II Rule 2 CPC in the Age of Digital Defamation
When New Media Meets Old Rules: The Delhi High Court’s Stance on Multiplicity of Suits
Continuous Online Harm versus Res Judicata: Lessons from CS(COMM) 946/2025
Amendment versus Fresh Suit: Navigating the Boundaries of Order II Rule 2 in Trademark Disputes
The Impact of Internet Publication on Cause of Action: Insights from the Delhi High Court Decision.
=====
Delhi High Court Dismisses Second Trademark‑Defamation Suit as Barred by Order II Rule 2
In a judgment delivered on 24 November 2025 in Castrol Limited Vs Sanjay Sonavane(CS(COMM) 946/2025), Justice Tejas Karia of the High Court of Delhi ruled that a plaintiff cannot bring a fresh suit seeking the removal of online articles and a YouTube video when the same relief could have been claimed in an earlier proceeding. The court held that the plaintiff’s second suit was barred by Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevents multiplicity of actions on the same cause of action. The judge noted that the plaintiff was aware of the offending material when the first suit was filed and could have amended that suit to include the later developments, rather than initiating a new case. Consequently, the court dismissed the present plaint but granted the plaintiff liberty to amend the original suit to incorporate the new facts and parties.
The decision underscores the principle that while the internet can give rise to a continuing cause of action, parties must still consolidate all related claims in a single proceeding to avoid the procedural bar imposed by Order II Rule 2. The ruling also highlights the importance of timely amendments under Order VI Rule 17 when fresh evidence emerges after a suit is instituted.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
