Introduction
In a ruling that highlights the importance of timely and diligent conduct of litigation, the Delhi High Court on 28 February 2026 dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the District Judge (Commercial Court) that refused permission to examine two additional witnesses in a long-pending trademark infringement suit concerning the mark “Clariwash” for skincare products.
The court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s repeated requests to add more witnesses at a late stage, especially when the suit was already six years old and the plaintiff’s evidence stage had been dragging on. The court emphasised that while parties have some flexibility to produce their own witnesses without court summons, they must still provide sufficient and convincing reasons for not including those witnesses in the initial list. Mere claims of health issues or work commitments, without supporting documents, were not enough to justify further delay. This decision serves as a reminder to litigants that courts expect efficiency in commercial disputes and will not readily allow repeated changes that prolong trials without good cause.
Factual Background
Innovative Derma Care, the petitioner, is engaged in marketing and selling skin care products under the trademark “Clariwash”. In July 2018, it discovered that Vardhaman Skincare Pvt. Ltd and another were allegedly manufacturing and selling face wash products under the same mark. This led the petitioner to file a commercial suit (CS(COMM) No. 403/2019) before the District Judge (Commercial), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off.
- Initial witness: Mr Rajesh Kumar Taneja (PW-1)
- Later added witnesses: PW-2 to PW-4
- Proposed additional witnesses:
- Mr Amit Chopra (PW-5)
- Mr Gulshan Kumar (PW-6)
The plaintiff claimed Mr Amit Chopra could not be included earlier due to deteriorating health and Mr Gulshan Kumar due to frequent travel and work commitments. However, the trial court dismissed the request on 21 November 2025, citing lack of sufficient justification.
Procedural Background
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Suit Filed | 2019 |
| Issues Framed | 4 February 2025 |
| Initial Witness List Filed | 10 February 2025 |
| Local Commissioner Appointed | 11 February 2025 |
| Additional Witnesses Allowed | March 2025 |
| Application For More Witnesses | 22 April 2025 |
| Application Rejected | 21 November 2025 |
| High Court Decision | 28 February 2026 |
The plaintiff then filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court carefully examined the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Order XVI Rule Analysis
- Rule 1: Requires parties to file a list of witnesses within prescribed time.
- Rule 1A: Allows parties to produce witnesses without court summons.
- Rule 1(3): Court may allow additional witnesses only upon showing sufficient cause.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan.
Court Findings On Delay And Discretion
- No documentary proof of health issues or unavailability
- Suit already six years old
- Witness list already expanded once
- Repeated applications indicated delay tactics
The High Court concluded that the trial court exercised discretion properly and no interference was required under Article 227.
Key Judgments Discussed With Citations And Context
The court primarily discussed Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan, (1983) 4 SCC 36.
The Supreme Court clarified the following:
- Parties can produce witnesses without summons
- The court retains power to regulate additional witnesses
- Sufficient cause must be shown for late inclusion
- Rule prevents abuse while allowing genuine evidence
The High Court applied this principle and found no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner.
Final Decision Of The Court
- Petition dismissed under Article 227
- No infirmity in trial court order
- No costs awarded
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
In a lawsuit, once issues are framed, parties must file a list of witnesses they want to examine. While you can bring your own witnesses without asking the court for summons (under Order XVI Rule 1A), if you want to add names later that were not in your original list, you must show a strong and genuine reason (“sufficient cause”).
- Vague reasons are insufficient
- Documentary proof is necessary
- Repeated delays will not be tolerated
- Commercial courts emphasize efficiency
Trial courts have reasonable discretion, and higher courts will not interfere unless there is clear legal error or injustice.
Case Details Summary
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Innovative Derma Care Vs. Vardhaman Skincare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. |
| Date Of Order | 28 February 2026 |
| Case Number | CM(M)-IPD 47/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:1829 |
| Court | High Court Of Delhi |
| Judge | Justice Tejas Karia |
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Author: Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
