Order 8

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 1
CS (COMM.) 6607/24
Chandra Prakash Gehlot Vs. Jasdeep Trading Company
11.03.2026
Present: Sh.Shiv Kumar Yadav, proxy counsel for plaintiff.
Sh.Anoop Singh, ld. counsel for defendant no.1 with
defendant no.1.
None for defendant no.2.
Upon request of proxy counsel for plaintiff put up at 02.00 p.m.
(Shailender Malik )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/11.03.2026
11.03.2026 at 02.00 p.m.
Present: Sh.Rakesh Tiwari, ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh.Anoop Singh, ld. counsel for defendant no.1 with
defendant no.1.
None for defendant no.2.
An affidavit has been filed regarding due service of summons
to defendant no.2. Application is supported with affidavit of plaintiff
to the effect that plaintiff visited at the given address of defendant no.2
and met with Prakash Pansari and provided him copy of summons
along with copy of plaint and documents.
This court finds that there is no effective service upon
defendant no.2, mere filing of affidavit of the plaintiff, in the absence
of any receipt from defendant no.2 or any other document to show the
due service of summons, mere affidavit of plaintiff cannot be taken as
a proof of service.
Fresh summons be issued defendant no.2 on the given address
upon PF, speed post, authorized courier and electronic mode, dasti
also.
-- 1 of 3 --
At this stage an application has been moved on behalf of the
plaintiff under Order 11 Rule 1 (5) CPC, seeking to place on record
certain additional documents. It is matter of record that earlier an
application with similar relief was moved by plaintiff, however same
was not pressed for and was dismissed by order dated 16.07.2025 of
ld. Predecessor of this court.
It is submitted by ld. counsel for the plaintiff that earlier
application was withdrawn on technical reasons, however the similar
documents as placed on record with earlier application are to be filed
with the suit of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff has filed the
present suit u/s 134/135 of Trade Mark Act as well as Section 55 of
Copyright Act seeking permanent injunction, rendition of account in
respect of passing off on the ground that defendant no.1 M/s Jasdeep
Trading Company as well as defendant no.2 (John Doe) are carrying
out illegal activity of violating the trade mark of the plaintiff company.
It is matter of record that ld. Predecessor of this court by order dated
16.07.2024 appointed the LC for visiting the alleged place for
conducting the search and to seize the infringing articles/goods, which
are subject matter of passing off the trade mark of plaintiff.
It is after filing of the LC report, on an application of plaintiff
defendant no.2 was added as additional defendant as he was found
there and violating material was seized from defendant no.2. It is
stated that in that factual context as well as in view of the pleadings of
the WS of defendant no.1, present application has been moved to
place on record documents to show that defendant no.1 firm has been
dealing into organic shampoo, detergent powder, bath soaps etc., to
belie the pleadings in WS of defendant no.1 to the effect that
defendant no.1 is indulged into selling of vegetables only. It is stated
that there are certain WhatsApp chats between partner of defendant
no.1 and one of the distributor of the plaintiff. Those additional
documents are also supported with certificate u/s 63 of BSA.
-- 2 of 3 --
Ld. counsel for defendant no.1 opposed the application by
stating that the application with similar relief has already been
dismissed as withdrawn.
Having considered the submissions, this court in the light of
pleadings as come on the judicial record finds that documents to be
placed on record by way of present application are relevant for
deciding the controversy involved in the suit. Moreover defendants
would get an opportunity to rebut the documents. Case is at the initial
stages. Consequently application is allowed. In view of the allowing
of additional documents on record, defendants are at liberty to file
additional WS within four weeks, however on limited aspect of
additional documents.
Put up this case for service of defendant no.2 as well as for
additional WS, further proceedings on 13.05.2026.
(Shailender Malik )
District Judge (Commercial)-02
North District, Rohini Courts,
Delhi/11.03.2026
-- 3 of 3 --