Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN - APPELLANT
VERSUS
VINAY KUMAR G.B. – RESPONDENT
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5620 OF 2021 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 13082 OF 2021)
DECIDED ON : 15-09-2021
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 (3) – Production of additional documents on record – Suit claiming decree of permanent injunction against defendant from using Trade Mark – Application for leave to produce on record additional documents was preferred by appellant – Original plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC – However, considering Order XI Rule 1 as applicable to commercial suits by which Civil Procedure Code has been amended with respect to suits before commercial court and in view of Section 16 of Commercial Courts Act, Order VII Rule 14 (3) of CPC shall have no application at all – After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and before commercial court, provision of Code of Civil Procedure as has been amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall have to be followed and any provision of any rule of jurisdiction of High Court or any amendment to Code of Civil Procedure by State Government which is in conflict of Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Commercial Courts Act, provision of Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Commercial Courts Act shall prevail – Order XI Rule 1 as amended by amendment in Commercial Courts Act, with respect to suits before commercial division and commercial court, provisions of Order VII Rule 14 (3) shall not be applicable at all – As such, plaintiff applied wrong provision seeking leave of court to place on record additional documents – However, considering fact that thereafter, both Commercial Court as well as High Court treated and considered and even applied Order XI Rule 1 of CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act and as applicable to suits filed before commercial division, commercial court, Court proceeds to consider application submitted by appellant herein – original plaintiff, as if same was submitted under Order XI Rule 1 (4) of CPC. (Para 7.2)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 (3) – Production of additional documents on record – Suit claiming decree of permanent injunction against defendant from using Trade Mark – Plaintiff has to declare on oath that all documents in its/his power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to facts and circumstances of proceedings, initiated by him/it have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with plaint, and that he does not have any other documents in his power, possession, control or custody – As such it is mandated by Order XI Rule 1 for plaintiff to disclose and produce all documents in his power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to facts and circumstances of proceedings – However additional documents can be permitted to be bought on record with leave of court as provided in Order XI Rule 1 (4) – In case of urgent filings plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents within thirty days of filing of suit, making out a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint. (Paras 7.23, 7.4 and 7.5)
(C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XI Rule 1 (3) and Order VII Rule 14 (3) – Production of additional documents on record – Suit claiming decree of permanent injunction against defendant from using Trade Mark – Plaintiff has to satisfy and establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with plaint – However, at the same time, requirement of establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents along with plaint shall not be applicable if it is averred and it is case of the plaintiff that those documents have been found subsequently and in fact were not in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody at the time when plaint was filed – Order XI Rule 1 (4) and Order XI Rule 1 (5) applicable to commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint – Rigour of establishing reasonable cause in non-disclosure along with plaint may not arise in case where additional documents sought to be produced/relied upon are discovered subsequent to filing of plaint. (Para 7.6)
(D) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VII Rule 14 (3) – Production of additional documents on record – Suit claiming decree of permanent injunction against defendant from using Trade Mark – At the stage of granting leave to place on record additional documents court is not required to consider genuineness of documents/additional documents, stage at which genuineness of documents to be considered during trial and/or even at stage of deciding application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 that too while considering prima facie case – Commercial Court ought to have granted leave to plaintiff to rely on/produce invoices as mentioned in application as additional documents – While seeking leave of court to rely on documents which were in his power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within extended period set out in Order XI Rule 1 (4), plaintiff has to establish reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint – When second suit was filed, it cannot be said to be urgent filing of suit for injunction – There was sufficient time gap between filing of first suit and filing of second suit – When second suit was filed plaintiff was having sufficient time after filing of first suit, to file additional documents other than invoices at the time when second suit was filed – As such, both courts below have rightly not permitted plaintiff to rely upon documents, other than invoices as additional documents in exercise of powers under Order XI Rule 1 (4) read with Order XI Rule 1 (5) – Appeal Partly allowed. (Paras 8.3, 8.4, 8.5 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Appellant herein – original plaintiff filed the commercial suit before the Commercial Court pending in the court of Additional District Judge (Central), claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the Trade Mark “INSIGHT”, “INSIGHT ACADEMY”, “INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY” and “INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS”. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. M. (M) No.181 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein – original plaintiff and has confirmed the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by Commercial Court, dismissing application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking leave of the court to place additional documents on record, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
While seeking leave of the court to rely on documents, which were in his power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out in Order XI Rule 1 (4), plaintiff has to establish the reasonable cause for non disclosure along with plaint.
Result : Appeal Partly allowed.
The final conclusion is that the court partly allowed the appeal by setting aside the orders that had denied the plaintiff leave to produce certain additional documents, specifically invoices. The court granted permission for the plaintiff to produce and rely on these invoices as additional documents, recognizing that they were not available at the time of filing the plaint and that their subsequent discovery justified their production (!) . However, the court upheld the orders denying leave for the production of other additional documents, affirming that the delay and lack of sufficient cause for non-disclosure at the time of filing justified the non-permission (!) .
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. M. (M) No.181 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said petition preferred by the appellant herein – original plaintiff and has confirmed the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned Commercial Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) seeking leave of the court to place additional documents on record, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant herein – original plaintiff filed the commercial suit before the Commercial Court pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge (Central) 10, being T.M. No.123 of 2019 interalia for claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the Trade Mark “INSIGHT”, “INSIGHT ACADEMY”, “INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY” and “INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS”. At this stage, it is to be noted that the appellant filed the earlier suit being Trade Mark Suit No.236 of 2018, claiming such adoption and use of the trademark. However, subsequently the same came to be withdrawn on 27.07.2019, as the same was not filed in conformity with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Courts Act) and subsequently filed the present suit on 31.08.2019. In the suit it is alleged that the adoption and use of the trademark by it is since 2006. As per the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 applicable to the suits before the commercial division of a High Court or a commercial court, the plaintiff was required to file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint or certain documents including the invoices, were not produced along with the plaint and therefore the appellant herein filed the application under Order VII Rule 14 (3) read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking leave of the court to file additional documents.
2.1 By order dated 13.11.2019, the learned Commercial Court dismissed the said application seeking leave of the court to file additional documents, filed by the appellant. That thereafter the defendant filed the written statement on 06.01.2020. As per Order XI Rule 7 even the defendant was required to file the list of all documents, photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the written statement or with its counter claim, if any. However, some documents were not produced by the defendant along with the written statement and therefore the defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 (10) of the CPC seeking leave of the court to produce additional documents as set out in the said application, however, the commercial court partly rejected the said application vide order dated 08.10.2020.
The respondent herein – original defendant preferred an appeal against the order dated 08.10.2020 before the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court vide order dated 07.12.2020 allowed the said appeal taking on record all the documents filed by the defendant. That thereafter the learned Commercial Court dismissed the interim injunction application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC of the plaintiff vide order dated 16.01.2021.
2.2 That thereafter the appellant herein – original plaintiff filed CM (M) No.181 of 2021 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the order dated 13.11.2019, dismissing the application seeking leave of the court to file additional documents filed by the plaintiff. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said CM (M) No. 181 of 2021 and has confirmed the order passed by the learned Commercial Court dismissin
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with the pl....
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict disclosure obligations, requiring all documents to be submitted at the outset. Late submissions necessitate a clear justification for non-disclosure, which w....
The court affirmed that documents not disclosed with the written statement in commercial cases cannot be admitted, but contradictory decisions on evidence closure were ruled unsustainable.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing, as per Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and clarifies....
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
