Brief Introductory Note
Brief Introductory Note: 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
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.
Procedural Detail
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.
Core Dispute
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.
Detailed Reasoning
Detailed Reasoning: 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:
| Condition | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Same Cause of Action | The second suit must be for the same cause of action. |
| 2. Multiple Reliefs Possible | The plaintiff must have been entitled to more than one relief in the first suit. |
| 3. Omission of Relief | The plaintiff must have omitted to claim the additional 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
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.
Concluding Note
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.
Case Details
- Case Title: Castrol Limited Vs Sanjay Sonavane
- Order Date: 24 November 2025
- Case Number: CS(COMM) 946/2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10370
- Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
- Name of Hon’ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer
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 Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
