FAO (COMM)/207/2026 of INFINERA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. Vs NETSARANG COMPUTER, INC. & ANR. on 12 August 2026

O R D E R

%

12.08.2026

1. This appeal was listed before the Court on 10.08.2026 and the matter was adjourned for today.

2. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have filed an application before the Ld. District Judge under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) for unconditional withdrawal of the suit, though, we find the prayers are otherwise.

3. In any case, a perusal of the order passed by the Ld. District Judge on the said application on 11.08.2026 reads as under: - “Statement of AR for plaintiff has been recorded wherein plaintiff wishes to withdraw the present suit.

In view of the statement of AR for plaintiff, the present suit stands dismissed as withdrawn. The superdari on any of the articles stands cancelled and parties may remove the seal on computer/laptop, if any.”

4. On this, the learned counsel for the appellants submit that in view of the suit having been withdrawn, the appeal shall not survive.

5. We note that the challenge in the appeal is primarily related to an order passed by this Court appointing a Local Commissioner. The order was passed on 20.04.2026 granting 25 days for the Local Commissioner to execute the commission. We also note the same was not executed within the stipulated time rather an application was filed by the respondent no. 1 seeking extension of time to execute the commission on or before 25.07.2026.

6. It is admitted position that the Commission was executed on 13.07.2026. It is to be noted that the Local Commissioner has executed the Commission by only supplying the copy of the plaint on the appellant without documents.

7. In justification, the Local Commissioner states that the documents were not even supplied to him by the respondents/plaintiffs, as such he could not supply the same to the respondents. In any case, the order of appointing the Local Commissioner and also the execution of the Commission, is in violation of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.

8. As the respondents/plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit itself on 11.08.2026 and the learned counsel for the appellant submits that nothing further survives in the appeal, we dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to an e-mail sent by the appellants to the counsel for the respondents wherein she has referred to the submission made by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs before the Commercial Court on 11.08.2026 that all screen-shorts and records pertaining to the third-party software obtained during the course of the Commission including those recorded in the Local Commissioner’s report and any copies retained by the respondents/plaintiffs or their representatives, have been permanently deleted.

10. She states that at least, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs must reiterate the submission as was made before the Ld. District Judge on 11.08.2026.

11. On this, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs reiterates the submission that all screen-shorts and records pertaining to the third-party software obtained during the course of the Commission including those recorded in the Local Commissioner’s report and any copies retained by the plaintiffs or their representatives have been permanently deleted. We take the submission of the counsel on record.

12. In view of the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 12, 2026/rhc