The court ruled that leave to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder requires a reasonable cause, which was not established, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules to ensure timely resolution in commercial suits.

ORDER :

1. This application is filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 read with Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) for interim relief pending the suit. By order dated 24^th July 2025, an ex parte interim relief is granted. The defendant has presented an affidavit-in-reply dated 28^th August 2025.

2. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff seeks leave to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder. He submits that in view of the case set up by the defendant in paragraph 47 of the affidavit-in-reply, the plaintiff would be entitled to file an affidavit-in-rejoinder and produce on record additional documents and also deal with the overall pleadings in the affidavit-in-reply.

3. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff relies upon the decision of this court in the case of Sony Music Entertainment Private Limited vs. Ilaiyaraaja Music N. Management Private Limited and Others , IAL-25506-2023-COMIP-560-2022. He submits that this court has taken a view that, considering the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(1) (c) (ii) of the CPC, the plaintiff is entitled to file additional documents and a rejoinder in answer to any case set up by the defendant after the filing of the plaint. He therefore submits that, in view of the case set up by the defendant in the affidavit- in-reply, in response to the pleadings in paragraph 16 of the plaint, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to respond to the case set up by the defendant in the affidavit-in- reply. He submits that the defendant has raised objections on the design registration of the plaintiff and the invoices referred to by the plaintiff; hence, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to produce on record additional documents to respond to the allegations in the reply. He therefore seeks leave to file a rejoinder affidavit to the affidavit-in-reply.

4. The learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that the contentions in the affidavit-in-reply are in response to the pleadings and the documents annexed to the plaint. He points out that there is no new case made out or set up by the defendant which would fall within the meaning of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC. He submits that what cannot be permitted in view of sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order XI, cannot be brought on record by relying upon sub-rule (1)(c)(ii) of Rule 1 of Order XI of the CPC.

5. In the present case, the plaintiff, in paragraph 16, has pleaded regarding the sale of fans following the filing of the registration application on 1^st January 2020. The plaintiff has filed copies of representative invoices and printouts of certain publicity material relating to the registered design of the fan. In response to the plaintiff’s pleadings regarding goodwill and reputation, the defendant, in its reply, contends that, according to the plaintiff's pleadings and documents, only 157 fans under the alleged registered design have been sold since 2020. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply, it is seen that all the contentions in the affidavit-in-reply are in response to the pleadings in the plaint. There is no new case set up in the affidavit-in-reply.

6. To verify whether the case set up in the affidavit-in-reply would fall under the grant of leave as contemplated under Order XI Rule 1 (1)(c)(ii) of the CPC, the reply needs to be considered to find out whether it refers to the events after the filing of the plaint or some factual averment that cannot be made referrable to the original pleadings in the plaint or the documents. For example, the plaintiff would have to show a reasonable and justifiable cause as to why the pleadings or documents sought to be brought on record by way of a rejoinder c