{"id":17377,"date":"2026-03-19T06:01:31","date_gmt":"2026-03-19T06:01:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=17377"},"modified":"2026-03-19T06:06:47","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T06:06:47","slug":"after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/","title":{"rendered":"After pronouncement of Judgment, the court becomes functus officio, except to review its judgment or correct any clerical errors"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision grapples with the tension between the need for effective enforcement against ever-evolving online infringement and the strict procedural boundaries imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Parties_and_Trademark\" >Parties and Trademark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Defendants_Activities\" >Defendants&#8217; Activities<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Initial_Orders\" >Initial Orders<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Modifications_and_Impleadment\" >Modifications and Impleadment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Compliance_by_Defendants\" >Compliance by Defendants<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Status_at_Final_Hearing\" >Status at Final Hearing<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Reasoning\" >Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Core_Reliefs\" >Core Reliefs<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Dynamic_Injunction_Issue\" >Dynamic Injunction Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Courts_Analysis\" >Court&#8217;s Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Post-Decree_Limitations\" >Post-Decree Limitations<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Departure_from_Precedents\" >Departure from Precedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Legislative_Appeal\" >Legislative Appeal<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Judgments_with_Complete_Citation_Discussed_and_Decision_of_Court\" >Judgments with Complete Citation Discussed and Decision of Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Supreme_Court_and_High_Court_Authorities\" >Supreme Court and High Court Authorities<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Coordinate_Bench_Decisions_Analysed\" >Coordinate Bench Decisions Analysed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Decision_of_the_Court\" >Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/after-pronouncement-of-judgment-the-court-becomes-functus-officio-except-to-review-its-judgment-or-correct-any-clerical-errors\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p>While granting a permanent injunction and directing blocking of infringing domain names, the Court emphatically refused to incorporate a \u201cdynamic injunction\u201d mechanism that would allow post-decree impleadment of mirror or alphanumeric variant websites through the Joint Registrar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This stance creates a deliberate divergence from earlier coordinate bench precedents such as UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To and Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co., thereby reopening the debate on the scope of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC once a civil suit reaches finality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment also contains an urgent legislative appeal to the Central Government and Parliament to amend the CPC and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, highlighting the growing frustration of successful IP litigants who obtain decrees yet face repeated evasion through technological mimicry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"parties-and-trademark\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Parties_and_Trademark\"><\/span>Parties and Trademark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Mahindra &amp; Mahindra Limited, the flagship company of the Mahindra Group founded in 1945, and its subsidiary Mahindra Logistics Limited (collectively the plaintiffs) have built an enormous reputation around the word mark \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The mark is registered in Classes 12, 35 and 39 since the 1970s, with multiple device and word mark registrations spanning decades.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Supreme Court itself recognised \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d as a well-known trademark in Mahendra &amp; Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra &amp; Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 2 SCC 147.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs operate in automobiles, tractors, logistics and mobility solutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"defendants-activities\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Activities\"><\/span>Defendants&#8217; Activities<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendant No. 1, Diksha Sharma, trading as \u201cMahidnra Packers Movers\u201d (deliberate misspelling noted in the plaint), along with other contesting defendants, adopted the identical mark \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d in device and word form for packing and moving services.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>They registered multiple domain names and operated listings on Google.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Registered Domains<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>www.mahindrapackers.com<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>www.mahindrapackers.in<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>www.mahindrapackersmovers.com<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>www.mahindrapackersandmovers.com<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>www.mahindrapackersandmovers.in<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>Defendants 5 to 8 were intermediaries (GoDaddy, Google LLC, etc.) while Defendant 9 was the Department of Telecommunications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Later, mirror websites operated by Defendants 10\u201312 were impleaded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs alleged:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Classic infringement<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Passing off<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dilution<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer deception<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>This was based on the identical nature of the services and the fame of the \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"initial-orders\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Initial_Orders\"><\/span>Initial Orders<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>On 12 April 2023 the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining use of \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d or any deceptively similar mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Directed blocking of the five domains by Defendants 5, 7 and 8<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Issued directions to DoT for ISP-level blocking<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ordered Google to de-index the domains<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Disabled associated Gmail accounts<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"modifications-and-impleadment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Modifications_and_Impleadment\"><\/span>Modifications and Impleadment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The order was modified on 2 May 2024 to permit impleadment of mirror\/alphanumeric variants by way of application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, with the Joint Registrar empowered to extend the injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Defendants 10\u201312 impleaded on 2 August 2024<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Further impleadment on 9 September 2024<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Interim order extended to them<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"compliance-by-defendants\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Compliance_by_Defendants\"><\/span>Compliance by Defendants<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>GoDaddy disclosed registrant details<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Google confirmed de-indexing<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>DoT issued blocking instructions to ISPs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"status-at-final-hearing\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Status_at_Final_Hearing\"><\/span>Status at Final Hearing<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>By the time of final hearing, the original infringing domains stood blocked and no oral evidence was required under Rule 7(viii) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs, while seeking decree in terms of the original prayers, additionally pressed for a \u201cdynamic + injunction\u201d clause allowing them to file fresh applications before the Joint Registrar even after decree to implead future mirror sites and extend the injunction automatically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning\"><\/span>Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"core-reliefs\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Reliefs\"><\/span>Core Reliefs<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court first acknowledged that the core reliefs of permanent injunction, domain blocking and delisting stood satisfied through compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"dynamic-injunction-issue\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dynamic_Injunction_Issue\"><\/span>Dynamic Injunction Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>It then turned to the novel prayer for post-decree dynamic relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The plaintiffs relied on:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Order VII Rule 7 CPC<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prayer clause seeking relief against \u201cany other domain name\u201d containing \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>UTV Software and Universal City Studios precedents<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Analysis\"><\/span>Court&#8217;s Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Justice Gedela meticulously dissected this contention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Once judgment is pronounced under Order XX CPC, the Court becomes functus officio<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The interim injunction merges into the final decree<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It ceases to have independent existence<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Neither Section 151 nor any other provision of the CPC confers jurisdiction on the Court \u2014 much less on its Principal Officer, the Joint Registrar \u2014 to entertain fresh impleadment applications or extend injunctions after the decree is drawn up.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"post-decree-limitations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Post-Decree_Limitations\"><\/span>Post-Decree Limitations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The only permissible post-decree interventions are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Correction of clerical\/arithmetical errors under Section 152 CPC<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Review under Order XLVII<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Delegating to the Joint Registrar what the Court itself cannot do would amount to indirect circumvention of the doctrine of functus officio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment further emphasised that what cannot be achieved directly cannot be achieved indirectly, citing the Andhra Pradesh High Court precedent on delegation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"departure-from-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Departure_from_Precedents\"><\/span>Departure from Precedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court respectfully declined to follow the dynamic injunction framework in UTV and Universal City Studios insofar as it permitted post-pronouncement action by the Joint Registrar.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It noted that those decisions did not have the benefit of the binding Supreme Court authorities on functus officio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legislative-appeal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legislative_Appeal\"><\/span>Legislative Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The judgment also contains a powerful obiter appeal to the Legislature and Central Government to urgently amend the CPC and IT Rules so that execution of decrees in internet-era IP cases does not remain illusory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It recognised the practical reality of rapid mirror-site proliferation yet refused to stretch inherent powers beyond statutory limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judgments-discussed-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgments_with_Complete_Citation_Discussed_and_Decision_of_Court\"><\/span>Judgments with Complete Citation Discussed and Decision of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"supreme-court-high-court-authorities\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Supreme_Court_and_High_Court_Authorities\"><\/span>Supreme Court and High Court Authorities<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court discussed and applied a formidable line of Supreme Court and High Court authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P., (1999) 3 SCC 500:<\/strong> The Supreme Court held that after pronouncement and signing of judgment the court becomes functus officio and cannot pass effective judicial orders; Section 152 is confined to accidental slips or omissions and does not permit variation of the decree on merits.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92:<\/strong> Clarified that a judge becomes functus officio the moment the judgment is pronounced, signed and dated, subject only to Section 152 and review.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Assn. v. Union of India, (2023) 18 SCC 1:<\/strong> Reiterated that the doctrine of functus officio gives effect to finality and prevents endless revisitation except through appeal or statutorily conferred review.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad, (2002) 1 SCC 90:<\/strong> Was cited on Order VII Rule 7 but ultimately held not to support post-decree impleadment liberty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"coordinate-bench-decisions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Coordinate_Bench_Decisions_Analysed\"><\/span>Coordinate Bench Decisions Analysed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Coordinate bench decisions relied upon by plaintiffs were analysed in detail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>UTV Software Communication Ltd. v. 1337X.To, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 10975:<\/strong> Permitted plaintiffs to implead mirror sites via Order I Rule 10 applications before the Joint Registrar even after decree.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Universal City Studios LLC v. Mixdrop Co., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3395:<\/strong> Followed the same mechanism.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The Court expressly stated it was \u201cunable to subscribe\u201d to these views to the extent they allow post-pronouncement action by the Joint Registrar, observing that the earlier benches did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court functus officio jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"decision-of-the-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The decision of the Court was clear and categorical: the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) to (h) of the plaint \u2014 permanent injunction restraining use of \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d or any deceptively similar mark, mandatory injunction for blocking the listed domains and any other containing \u201cMAHINDRA\u201d, directions to DoT and Google, damages claim left for execution if quantified later, rendition of accounts and costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>However, the specific relief for liberty to file post-decree applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC before the Joint Registrar for impleadment of mirror sites and extension of injunction under Section 151 CPC is rejected. The decree sheet was directed to be drawn up accordingly and the suit disposed of.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment settles an important procedural point in intellectual property litigation involving online infringement: once a final judgment is pronounced and the decree is drawn under Order XX CPC, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot retain jurisdiction to entertain applications for impleadment of mirror\/redirect\/alphanumeric variant websites or to extend injunctions through the Joint Registrar under Section 151 CPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The interim order merges in the final decree and cannot be independently enforced or expanded post-decree by any officer of the Court. Any such mechanism would require legislative amendment to the CPC or the IT Rules; judicial innovation cannot travel beyond the statutory framework. The ruling reinforces the doctrine of finality while simultaneously flagging the urgent need for statutory reform to address the practical helplessness of IP owners against rapidly mutating online infringers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Case Title<\/td><td>Mahindra and Mahindra Limited &amp; Anr Vs Diksha Sharma, Proprietor of Mahindra Packers Movers &amp; Ors<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Order<\/td><td>16 March 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>CS(COMM) 209\/2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2026:DHC:2154<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Court<\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/td><td>Tushar Rao Gedela, J.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/strong> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction This decision grapples with the tension between the need for effective enforcement against ever-evolving online infringement and the strict procedural boundaries imposed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. While granting a permanent injunction and directing blocking of infringing domain names, the Court emphatically refused to incorporate a \u201cdynamic injunction\u201d mechanism that would allow<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":{"0":"post-17377","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-intellectual-property","8":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17377","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17377"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17377\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17377"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17377"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17377"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}