Disclosing evidence collected by a Court Commissioner before framing issues constitutes improper judicial assistance in building a plaintiff’s case.

The Respondent No. 1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for infringement of copyright regarding proprietary engineering drawings and intellectual property against the Petitioners (Defendants)

On 25.09.2018, the Commercial Court appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the Defendants' computers and preserve data, which was subsequently stored in a pen drive (Mark 18/16)

While the Defendants were provided a copy of the data, the Plaintiff moved an application (Exhibit 98) seeking printouts of the contents, arguing the data belonged to them and was necessary for the trial

At the time of this application, the suit was at the stage of framing issues and several amendment applications were pending

On 17.03.2026, the Commercial Court partly allowed the application, directing the System Officer to provide printouts of only the "data of plaintiff" stored in the pen drive

The Defendants challenged this order under Article 227 of the Constitution, alleging it enabled the Plaintiff to build its evidence prematurely and risked disclosing confidential trade secrets

Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC, regarding local investigations to elucidate matters in dispute

Order XXVI Rule 10(2), which stipulates that a Commissioner’s report and the evidence taken shall form part of the record and be evidence in the suit

Order XXXIX Rule 7, regarding the detention and preservation of subject matter at the interim stage

Distinction between the "preservation" of evidence (as seen in Autodesk Inc v. A.V.T. Shankardass) and the "collection" of evidence for a party.

The principle from Prime Diamond Tech v. Sonani Jewels, which protects confidential trade secrets from being divulged to rivals at the interim stage

The High Court found that the Commercial Court committed a procedural error by ordering the release of data printouts at the preliminary stage of framing issues

The Court reasoned that since the Plaintiff had not yet led its evidence or even finalized the pleadings (due to pending amendment applications), providing data collected from the Defendants’ computers would amount to the Court assisting the Plaintiff in "building its case"

The High Court emphasized that a Court Commissioner’s report is a rebuttable piece of evidence under Order XXVI Rule 10(2), and the Defendants must have the opportunity to confront the Commissioner

The Commercial Court failed to adequately address the Defendants' concerns regarding the confidentiality of trade secrets contained within the pen drive

The High Court determined that the "proper stage" for such a request would be after issues are framed and the Plaintiff has led its own evidence, ensuring the trial proceeds in a balanced manner

The Court held that providing the Plaintiff access to information collected from the rival party's computers at this premature stage was improper

The Plaintiff's application (Exhibit 98) was revived, with directions to the Commercial Court to reconsider it at an "appropriate stage" after the Plaintiff leads its evidence

The Commercial Court was further directed to ensure the preservation of the pen drive data to address the Plaintiff’s concerns regarding data corruption

No costs were ordered