Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.04.2026
ADOBE INCORPORATED & ORS. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Aarshia Behl, Ms. Shruti Baid, Ms. Aashi Sharma, Ms. Bhavya Manda, Mr. Suryansh Gupta, Ms. Yashi Singh and Ms. Ashwarya Bansal, Advs.
Through: None.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of. CM APPL. 23823/2026 (For leave to file addl. docs.)
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
4. The application stands disposed of. FAO (COMM) 103/2026 & CM APPL. 23710/2026, CM APPL. 23712/2026
5. This appeallays a challenge to an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned District Judge, (Commercial Court-07) South-East District, Saket Court,New Delhi, whereby, thelearned District Judgehas rejected the applicationfiled by theappellantsunderOrderXXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and a separate application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC.
6. The submission of Ms. Behl, the learned counselfor the appellants is primarily that the learned District Judge has erred in rejecting the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC at the first date of hearing, by stating as under: - “…..
31. Having regard to the above, material filed on record is miserably inadequate to term it sufficient for showing a prima facie case in Plaintiff’s favour. As Plaintiffs have filed to show any prima facie case, test for balance for convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, also fails, In view of the above observations, the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction is rejected.
32. Plaintiff has proposed to relief of appointment of Local Commissioner primarily based on the pleas taken in consideration while deciding the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC. In terms of law settled for appointment of Local Commissioner, it is noted that the Local Commissioner cannot be appointed for carrying investigation for plaintiff and collecting evidence on plaintiff’s behalf.
33. For the reasons that plaintiff has not been able to detail specifically any evidence, the request for appointment of Local Commissioner at this stage, is not maintainable. The application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC r/w Order XXXIX Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC is also rejected.”
7. She submitsthat, appropriatewouldhavebeen for the learned District Judgeto issueat least a notice on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, for the defendants to appear before the Court and answer theallegationsas madein the plaint and the application. She states that in view of the averments made in the plaint and application a prima facie finding should have been made in favour of the appellants and an interim relief granted as deemed appropriate. She states that it is the categoricalassertionin theplaint that defendantsareusingpirated software.
8. She submits that, the appellants’ case is that though the defendants/respondents have licences in respect of Adobe Acrobat [221 licences], defendants/respondents are also using the same product on additional machines without any licence. She states that many of these licences havealso not been renewed by the Defendants. It is her submission that, ifa Court Commissioner (CC)is appointed, thereportofthe CC would prove the stand taken by the appellants, which would have assisted the learned District Judge to pass appropriate orders in the injunction application as also final determination of the suit.
9. She relies uponthejudgment ofthe Division Bench in Autodesk Inc and Ors. V. A.V.T. Shankardass and Ors[1]. to contend that in identical facts theDivision Bench held that appointment of the Court Commissioner is imperativeto preservetheevidenceof softwarepiracy. Shehas drawnour attention to the observations made by the Division Bench on the issue of quality of evidence required at an ex-parte stage from the plaintiff with respect to the proof of infringement.
10. During the course of the hearing, we have been informed that the learned District Judge after dismissing the applications by the impugned order, issued summons, to list the matter on 07.04.2026, but the District Judgedid not hold theCourt on thatday. Shestatesthatthematter has been adjourned to 05.05.2026.Sheclarifies that theappellanthas not taken steps for issuance of summons as it has preferred the present appeal.
11. Havingheard thelearned counselfor the appellantsand after perusing the order passed by the learned District Judge, we agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, more particularlyin thefacts of this case pertainingto softwarepiracythat even if the learned District Judge was not inclined to pass an ad-interim ex-parte order, it should haveat least issued notice on the applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, 1908, more so, keeping in view of the case pleaded by the appellants in the suit as well as in the applications.
12. Having not done that and rejected above said application, we are restoringtheapplication filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on the boardofthe learned District Judge and setting aside the order dated 20.02.2026on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for the date fixed i.e., 05.05.2026.
13. We arealso of the consideredopinionthattheimpugned order insofar as it dismissed the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was also not merited in view of the judgment of Autodesk Inc and Ors. (supra). To avoid any further delay in adjudication, weare proceedingto appointtheLocal Commissioner in these proceedings. CM APPL. 23711/2026 (For appointment of local commissioner(s).
14. We find merit in thesubmissionofthe appellant that the facts of this case areidentical with Autodesk Inc and Ors. (supra). In the said case as well the learned Single Judge while declining to grant ad-interim ex-parte injunction and issuing notice on the injunction application as well as the summons in the suit, had however dismissed the application seeking 1 MANU/TN/0133/1986, paragraph no. 14 appointmentofLocal Commissioner. TheDivision Bench in the intra Court appealitselfproceeded to appointtheLocalCommissionerso as to preserve the evidence of software piracy.
15. Accordingly, wehavetaken up for consideration the application for appointmentofLocal Commissioner being CM APPL. 23711/2026 filed in this appealso as to preserve the evidence of infringement/software piracy. This Courtdeems it appropriateto appointtwo (2)Local Commissioners; as per the details provided hereinunder: S.No ADDRESS PARTICULARS
1. Wing C, Unit No. 303 and 304, Corporate Avenue, Guru Gobindji Marg, New Andheri Kurla Link Road, Andheri East Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400093 Ms. Krisha Baweja, Mob. 8860059481
2. Unit No. 502, Wing B, Satellite Gazebo, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra – Mr. Shivam Parashar, Mob.
16. The mandate of the Local Commissioner is as under:
I. The Local Commissioners, along with a representative of the appellants/plaintiffs (alongwith technical experts) and their counsel, shall be permitted to enter upon the premises of the respondents mentioned hereinabove, or any other location/premises that may be identified, during the course of the commission, in order to conduct the search and seizure.
II. The Local Commissionersshall inspect the CPUs/Hard Disks of the computers,compactdiscs and/orother storage/replicatingmedia, with the help of Technical Experts of the appellants/plaintiffs and determine if the aforesaid storage/ replicating media contain pirated/counterfeit/ unlicensed versions of the appellants’ software programmes.
III. The Local Commissioners shall make an inventory of the software program belonging to the appellant contained in computers systems/laptops/servers/ CPUs/Hard Disks and/or in CDs/ DVDs and/or upon any other storage media, as well as photocopies of licenses held, if any;
IV. If the computers and/or other storage/replicating media of the
Defendants are password protected, the defendants shall make accessible the said password(s) so as to enable the Local Commissioner to execute the commission.
V. The Local Commissioners shall take into custody all Central
ProcessingUnits(CPUs),servers/CompactDisks/ DVDs and/or any other storage media containing illegal/unlicensed/pirated/ unauthorized versionsofthe appellants/plaintiffs software, identified by the accompanying technical expert as such and thereafter seal/ seize the same so as to preserve the evidence of unlicensed usage;
VI. In case the premises arefound locked, theLocalCommissioners shall be permitted to break open the lock(s), with the help of the local police, if access to the premises, is denied to the Commissioners.
VII. Upon beingrequested theconcerned jurisdictional police authorities, the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police and/or the StationHouseOfficer (‘SHO’)shallrender necessarycooperation for execution of the commissions, as per this order.
VIII. The Local Commissioner is permittedto takephotographs and videograph of the proceedings of the commission, if it is deemed appropriate.
IX. Both parties shallprovide assistance to the Local Commissioner for carrying out the aforesaid directions.
X. The Local Commissioners while executing the commission, shall ensure that there is no disruption to the business of the defendants/respondents, except for the purposes of the execution of the commission. The commission shall be executed in the peaceful manner.
XI. The Local Commissioners shall hand over the seized material on 'superdari' to the Respondents/Defendants or their representatives, who may be directed to give an appropriate undertaking that the sealed materials will be produced before this Hon'ble Court, as and when directed;
XII. Copy of the order and complete paper-book shall be served by the
17. The Local Commissioners shall execute the commission within a period of one [1] week from today and shall submit the report before the learned District Judge within a period of one [1] week thereafter.
18. The Local Commissionersshallbepaid an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/each for executing the Local Commissions, the aforesaid fee shall be excluding the out-of-pocket expenses which they may incur for executing the commission.
19. In terms of theforegoing, the presentapplication stands disposed of.
20. Either the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff or the learned Local Commissioners are directed to collect a certified copy of this order from the Registry (Dispatch Branch) before for execution of the Commission.
21. The Local Commissionersshallcarrythecertified copy of this Order for execution of the Commission and a copy of the same shall be served upontheRespondent/Defendant by theLocalCommissioners at the time of the execution of the Commissions.
22. The order passed today shall not be uploaded for a period of one (1) week to enable the execution of the commissions.
23. This order be given as Dasti under the signature of Court Master.
24. In view of this order, the application under Order Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by theappellants before the learned District Judge which had been dismissed vide the impugned order shall stand revived.
25. The learned District Judge shall consider the said application along with the report to be submitted by the Local Commissioners. In the meantime, we make it clear that after the commission is executed the appellants shall take steps to serve summons and a copy of the suit to the respondents herein for the date fixed before the learned District Judge.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
27. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J APRIL 13, 2026/mt/AJ