JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. 1. The 2 nd defendant who is a Chapter 11 Trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in a bankruptcy proceedings initiated against the subsidiary companies of the 1 st defendant incorporated in the United States has come up with this original petition seeking to strike off C.S. No. 118 of 2024 from the files of the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam. 2. C.S. No. 118 of 2024 instituted by the 1 st respondent/plaintiff seeking the following reliefs: “i. Declaring that the plaintiff 1 and 2 have the absolute right, title and ownership over (Epic Creations INC and Tangible Play INC including but not limited to) the domains and websites www.getepic.com and www.playosmo.com. ii. Issue a Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants 3 to 7 to restore the domain www.getepic.com and www.playosmo.com and ensure its functioning in the platforms of defendants 3 to 7, so as to benefit the plaintiffs and other stakeholders including the subscribers and employees of the plaintiffs. iii. Permanent Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from interfering with the access of the plaintiff 1 and 2 while exercising lawful right on the domains, Apps and websites www.getepic.com and www.playosmo.com .” 3. The 2 nd defendant approached this Court in O.P.(C) No. 1377 of 2025 which led to judgment dated 23.07.2025 (Ext. P28) wherein the prayer to strike off the suit was rejected, however, liberty was granted to the petitioner herein to move before the jurisdictional Court for appropriate reliefs. Challenging the judgment of this Court, the petitioner herein approached the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 24799 of 2025 which led to Ext. P29 order. 3.1. Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the petitioner that the subject matter of the suit filed by the respondents 1 and 2 before the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam, is subjudice before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, and the two Companies i.e. ‘Epic Creations INC’ and ‘Tangible Play INC’ qua the reliefs which have been sought for is the subject matter of the bankruptcy proceedings in the United States. According to the petitioner there were other reasons which prompted her to move the High Court directly which warranted interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . According to the petitioner there were other reasons which prompted her to move the High Court directly which warranted interference in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . The Supreme Court by Order dated 15.09.2025 disposed of the petition for special leave permitting the petitioner to move an application under Order X Rule 2 or Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , as the case may be, before the jurisdictional Court. In tune with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 23 of 2025 seeking to strike off the suit from the file. The application was ordered by the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam, by Order dated 19.12.2025 stating that pendency of a proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is not a bar to entertain a commercial suit before the jurisdictional Civil Court in India. Reliance is placed to explain Section 10 of the . Accordingly, the application was rejected and hence, the present original petition. 4. Heard Sri. Samudra Sarangi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Anand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Sri. Cyriac Tom, the learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and Sri. Shinto Mathew Abraham, the learned Counsel for the 5 th respondent. 5. Though multifarious arguments were advanced touching upon the sustainability of the claim before the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam, as regards the declaratory reliefs sought for by the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs and also the consequential mandatory and prohibitory injunction, the record of these proceedings indicate that the subject matter over which the declaratory relief is sought for stands already resolved by orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 20.05.2025 and that the subsequent purchasers have assumed operations of the Companies in question. The proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware also indicate that respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs, had actively participated in the proceedings. 6. The proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware also indicate that respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs, had actively participated in the proceedings. 6. In order to test the sustainability of the order impugned, this court must decide two questions; (i) Whether the plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed with C.S. No. 118 of 2024 as against the petitioner/2nd defendant, especially in the light of the proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware? and (ii) Since the 1 st defendant is already under insolvency proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru, in CP (IB) No. 149/BB/2023 and that an order appointing an Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional is passed on 16.07.2024, whether the present suit can be proceeded by the plaintiffs? 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner appearing for the Chapter 11 Trustee appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware points out that, at any rate, the 2 nd defendant cannot be proceeded with in the present proceedings inasmuch as she is only an Officer of the Court and had undertaken and completed the process of sale of the subsidiary companies of the 1 st defendant incorporated in the United States. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further points out that permitting the petitioner to proceed with the suit would be an abuse of process of law especially since the plaintiffs have already participated before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. It is further pointed out that there is a clear suppression of the facts as regards the participation of the plaintiffs before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in the present suit. In fact, for prosecuting the present suit, the respondents 1 and 2, the plaintiffs are already facing contempt proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. 8. It is undeniable that, the plaintiffs in this case, participated in the proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for District of Delaware. It is also indisputable that the subject matter of the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs in the present suit is no longer available since the same has been sold by orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 20.05.2025. It is also indisputable that the subject matter of the declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiffs in the present suit is no longer available since the same has been sold by orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on 20.05.2025. That be so, it will be a farcical exercise, if the Commercial Court – III, Ernakulam, is allowed to proceed with the suit in order to find whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled for a declaratory relief especially since the subject matter of the suit itself has got eroded by operation of the orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction outside the territory of India. That be so, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that by permitting respondents 1 and 2 to proceed with the present suit would only be an abuse of the process of law. 9. The Court below however held that going by explanation to Section 10 CPC , the present suit is not barred merely because of pendency of a suit in the foreign Court. This Court fails to comprehend how is attracted in this case. The relief sought for by the petitioner is not to stay the suit but to strike out the suit from the files of the court for suppression of material facts. It is precisely for this reason, power under Section 151 was invoked. 10. It must be remembered that the petitioner had approached the Trial Court with the present application armed with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. That being so, the Trial Court was obliged to see whether the 2nd defendant is a necessary party to the suit and whether any relief is claimed against her. 11. A reading of the relief sought for in the suit will show that the plaintiffs have not sought for any relief against the 2 nd defendant. The consequential mandatory injunction sought for against the 2 nd defendant is largely dependent on the plaintiff establishing its rights over the domain registered in the United States. It is borne out from the records that the plaintiffs have already participated in the proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and had suffered various orders which are suppressed. 12. It is borne out from the records that the plaintiffs have already participated in the proceedings before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware and had suffered various orders which are suppressed. 12. As regards the first contention, this Court must see whether the present suit can be rejected for suppression of facts or is vexatious or does it disclose any cause of action. In Manjula and others v. D.A. Srinivas , 2026 SCC Online 831 observed as follows: “Any suppression of a material fact, which has the effect of creating an illusory cause of action and eclipsing the legal bar, ought to be dealt with firmly, and the plaint would be liable to be summarily rejected. It is also settled law that a person who has suppressed a material fact is not entitled to any relief. Suppression of a material fact within the knowledge of the party amounts to fraud upon the Court. The relevancy or otherwise of a fact is to be decided by the Court, and parties cannot contend that they omitted a material fact on the assumption that it was not relevant. It is not only the duty of the Court to summarily reject the claim of a party suppressing a material fact, but also to ensure that any benefit obtained by such party is undone and status quo ante restored in its fairness and equity." 13. The averments in the plaint, however, does state about the pendency of the proceedings before the US Courts. Going by the transcript of proceedings dated 12-11-2024 (Ext P7) in In Re Chapter 11, Case No 24-11161(JTD) before the United States Bankruptcy Court of District of Delaware, it is evident that the plaintiffs had participated in the proceedings. Therefore, it is evident that there is a clear suppression of material facts. 14. Another aspect which this Court must take note is that, the declaratory reliefs sought for in the suit is basically against the subsidiary company of the 1 st defendant registered in the United States. The registration of the said companies under US Laws is not disputed before this Court. Surprisingly, the companies against whom the declaratory reliefs are sought for are not made a party to the suit. Instead, the plaintiff has sought consequential mandatory injunction against defendants 3 to 7 to restore the domain of those companies functioning in the platform. The registration of the said companies under US Laws is not disputed before this Court. Surprisingly, the companies against whom the declaratory reliefs are sought for are not made a party to the suit. Instead, the plaintiff has sought consequential mandatory injunction against defendants 3 to 7 to restore the domain of those companies functioning in the platform. Still further, defendants 3 to 7 are also outside the Jurisdiction of Commercial Court Ernakulam. Read as a whole, this Court is satisfied that the plaint in CS No 118 of 2024 is nothing but a clever piece of drafting, a camouflage to make it appear that the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Commercial Court Kochi. Therefore, this court is inclined to hold that the plaint in CS No 118/2024 fails to disclose any cause of action against the 2 nd defendant and is filed suppressing material facts. 15. Alternatively, it is contended that the suit itself is not maintainable since it is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the CPC , since the 1st defendant is already under insolvency proceedings before the NCLT Bengaluru. However, this court finds that the petitioner has not raised this contention in her application before the Subordinate Court and the same is raised for the first time before this Court. 16. Further question is whether this Court should consider the said issue in this original petition. The suit is seen filed on 20-11-2024, whereas Ext. P4 Order reveals that the National Company Law Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench passed Orders on CP (IB) No. 149/BB/2023 on 16.07.2024 appointing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional at the instance of the Board of Control for Cricket in India which is a creditor in respect of 1 st respondent company. Ext. P4 order reveals that the 1 st defendant Corporate debtor has been put on moratorium in terms of Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 thus attracting the bar under Section 14(1) (a) of theInsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 17. However, on closer scrutiny of the records it is seen that the 1 st defendant is set ex-parte and is seen represented by the Managing Director and not the resolution professional. 17. However, on closer scrutiny of the records it is seen that the 1 st defendant is set ex-parte and is seen represented by the Managing Director and not the resolution professional. Since the issue pertaining to the maintainability of the suit in view of the initiation proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 , was not raised by any of the parties, this Court feels that it is only appropriate to reserve liberty to the resolution professional to move an appropriate application under Order 7 rule 11 raising all possible contentions. 18. Accordingly, this original petition is hereby allowed in part by setting aside Ext. P2 order. Consequently, I.A. No. 23 of 2025 stands allowed and petitioner/2nd defendant in C.S. No. 118 of 2024 is ordered to be struck off from the party array. The Commercial Court-III Ernakulam is directed to carry out the directions of this court forthwith. The resolution professional appointed by NCLT Bengaluru is at liberty to move appropriate application before the court below under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC .