Urgent need for changes to CPC, IT Rules for dynamic injunctions to be effective: Delhi High Court to Centre

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday called upon the Central government and the legislature to urgently amend the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to ensure effective implementation of dynamic or dynamic+ injunctions [Mahindra and Mahindra Limited & Anr Vs Diksha Sharma Proprietor of Mahidnra Packers Movers & Ors.].Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said the concept of a dynamic or a dynamic + injunction is evolving but the Courts are grappling with the menace of infringement and how to effectively implement the orders.A dynamic injunction enables blocking of mirror sites based on an order already passed by the court.The Court noted that currently the only option available with a decree holder is to implement the decree by way of execution under CPC. However, it added that dynamic injunctions enable parties to seek faster enforcement against infringements."Having regard to the technological advancements in the field of innovation and concepts like Artificial Intelligence and the rapid developments in use of the internet, rather misuse, the Courts have developed the law in relation to suits and executions to align with such technological advancements," the Court said. The Court, however, opined that the moulding of relief and innovation in the method of execution cannot travel beyond the confines of the CPC. Thus, it pressed for legal changes to deal with the emerging issues.“There is an urgent and alarming need for the Central Government and the Legislature to act in haste to bring about radical changes in CPC as also the IT Rules to suit, and align with the complex and critical issues that the citizens, organisations, and entities are grappling with," the Bench said.Taking note of the huge financial losses that institutions and companies face even after being successful in a litigation, the Court urged the Central government and the legislature to urgently take action in this regard.“The Legislature and the Central Government are requested and advised to urgently take all appropriate steps to address this issue which is growing at an alarming rate and would consume and frustrate the execution of judgments and decrees passed by Courts in such special circumstances,” the Court stated. .The Court was hearing Mahindra and Mahindra’s trademark infringement suit..The Court had passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order in 2023 in favour of Mahindra and Mahindra, restraining certain defendants from using the trademark. The defendants were packers and movers who were misusing Mahindra’s trademark for conducting their business. In the latest application, Mahindra sought permission to implead other mirror, redirect or alphanumeric variation websites that were found to be infringing its trademark. It submitted that the these websites link directly to the original websites which were injuncted by the Court earlier.Hence, it sought impleadement of the mirrors by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC alongwith supporting affidavits and evidence, so as to enable the Joint Registrar (Judicial) to extend the final judgment passed by the Court in 2023..The Court considered two issues:(i) firstly, whether Mahindra could implead alleged infringers by way of an application post-decree of the suit; and (ii) secondly, whether the Court while exercising its powers under CPC, can extend the dynamic injunction decree to mirror, redirect or alphanumeric websites..The Court eventually rejected Mahindra's application on the ground that once a final judgment is passed in a matter, the judge cannot pass directions in the same matter again.“A direction of the nature sought by the plaintiff can or may be permissible to be considered while the suit is “alive” and the Court is in “seisin” of such suit. However, once the Court passes a final judgment and a decree is directed to be drawn up in terms thereof, the Court becomes “functus officio”….there is no judicial application of mind to the issues already settled in the said judgment,” the Court stated.The Bench further held that since the Court has delivered judgment and become “functus officio”, it cannot pass further directions thereafter to add more defendants since it would be contrary to civil law.“A Court which has itself become “functus officio”, granting any power to a learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), who is only a Principal Officer of the Court to not only implead a party to the already decided and disposed of suit, but also to extend the interim order of injunction against such party is completely contrary to and principally against the very tenets of civil jurisprudence. Once the Court itself is denuded of its power to reopen or introduce any new issue having become “functus officio”, it is beyond comprehension as to how such power can be conferred or vested upon the Principal Officer of the Court who is surely not equal or even equivalent to the Court itself.”.Further, the Court stated that if such a plea is allowed in general, the judgment would not attain finality and the matter would continue to remain alive forever. “In the manner proposed by learned counsel for the plaintiff [Mahindra], the suit would always be “alive” even after the judgment is pronounced or the decree is drawn up. A successful party can revive the suit even after a passage of long time. This would draw curtains upon the doctrine of finality attached to any legal proceedings,” the Court stated.Therefore, the Court refused to empower the Joint Registrar (Judicial) to extend the final judgment passed earlier..Advocates Vishal Nagpal, Suhrita Majumdar, Debjyoti Sarkar and Bal Krishan Singh appeared for Mahindra.Central government standing counsel Satya Ranjan Swain with advocate Kautilya Birat appeared for Department of Telecommunications. [Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.