UPGRID SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. v. SANJAY NAGAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR, SANJAY E RICKSHAW PARKING

Delhi High Court · 19 Dec 2025 · 2025:DHC:11668-DB
C. Hari Shankar; Om Prakash Shukla
FAO (COMM) 259/2025
2025:DHC:11668-DB
civil appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to amend the suit prayers under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, holding that interim applications cannot contain prayers beyond the main suit.

Full Text
Translation output
FAO (COMM) 259/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO (COMM) 259/2025
UPGRID SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Appellant
Through: Mr Abhijat Bal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rupesh Gupta, Ms. Kritika Tuteja and
Mr. Gauraang Rawata, Advs.
VERSUS
SANJAY NAGAR, SOLE PROPRIETOR, SANJAY E RICKSHAW PARKING .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish K Malhotra, Adv.
WITH
respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
ORDER (ORAL)
19.12.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 26 August 2025, whereby miscellaneous application filed by the plaintiff in CS (Comm) 546/2024 seeking return of batteries which were with the respondent has been rejected on the ground that there is no similar prayer in the main suit.

2. The learned Commercial Court has therefore held that, in an interim application, a prayer which is beyond the prayers in the main suit cannot be granted. FAO (COMM) 259/2025

3. Mr. Abhijat, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on instructions, seeks liberty to withdraw this appeal as he submits that the appellant would be instituting an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC before the learned Commercial Court to amend the prayers in the suit.

4. Leave and liberty is granted as aforesaid.

5. Mr. Abhijat also prays that it be clarified that in deciding the said application, the Court would not be influenced by any observations contained in the impugned order.

6. Inasmuch as the impugned order has not adjudicated on the appellant’s prayer for a direction to return the batteries to the appellant on merits, it is obvious that such a prayer, if it is permitted to be introduced by way of an amendment, would not be influenced by the observations contained in the order.

7. The present appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J. DECEMBER 19, 2025