In commercial suits, Order XI mandates strict initial document disclosure; allows post-suit documents without reasonable cause; narrowly permits pre-existing ones only as true response to defendant's post-plaint case; liberally grants pre-trial pleading amendments.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. The Applicants, who are the Plaintiffs in the captioned Suit, have filed the present Interim Application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (“CPC”), seeking to amend the Plaint as well as Notice of Motion (L) No. 14688 of 2019 by adding additional documents as well as pleadings.

A Brief Background:

2. On 23^rd August 2012, Plaintiff No. 2 obtained registration of the mark FINTREE (“the Plaintiffs’ mark”) bearing No. 23845600 in class 41.

3. On 14^th June 2019, the Plaintiffs filed the captioned Suit for infringement

since the Defendants were using the mark / FINTREE (“the impugned mark”). The Plaintiffs also filed Notice of Motion (L) No. 14688 of 2019 under the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking an injunction against the Defendant from using the impugned mark and infringing the registered trade mark of Plaintiff No.2.

4. The Defendant, on 3^rd September 2019, filed an Affidavit in Reply to the Notice of Motion.

5. Since the Plaint as filed did not contain any prayer for passing off, the Applicant, on 2^nd December 2021, filed Interim Application (L) No. 28145 of 2021, seeking to amend the Plaint by adding a prayer of passing off (“First Application for Amendment”). The First Application for amendment was allowed by this Court vide an Order dated 20^th February 2023.

6. However, while the pleadings in respect of passing off were added pursuant to the first amendment, it is the Plaintiffs’ case that some of the necessary pleadings and documents in support thereof were absent in the Plaint, and the separate prayer of passing off remained to be added in the prayer clause of Notice of Motion (L) No. 14688 of 2019. It was thus that the Applicant sought for and was granted liberty by this Court vide an Order dated 6^th March 2025 to file an appropriate application for amendment.

7. It was thus that the present Interim Application (“Second Application for Amendment”) has been filed.

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff:

8. Mr. Kamod, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiffs, submitted that the proposed amendments sought by the Plaintiffs fall into four categories:

a. Documents produced in answer to the case set up by the Defendant in its Affidavit in Reply;

b. Documents which came into existence after the filing of the Suit;

c. Documents not in the power, possession and custody of the Plaintiffs at the time of institution of the Suit, and;

d. Amendments confined purely to the pleadings.

He then, in support of each of these four categories, made the following submissions:

a. Documents in answer to the case set up by the Defendant

9. He submitted that there was no dispute as to the fact that the disclosure regime under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”) applied to Commercial Suits, including applications for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

He thus submitted that ordinarily, a Plaintiff is required to disclose along