Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.

I.A. Nos. 5621/2007 and is No. 8308/2007

1. Defendant filed is No. 5621 of 2007 Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 CPC to file additional documents. The defendant filed an affidavit by way of evidence on 16th March 2007. Along with the said affidavit, the defendant filed few more additional documents which it is contended could not be filed by the defendant at the time of filing written statement. The second is being No. 8308 of 2007 for similar relief was filed.

.2. In is No. 5621 of 2007, it is stated that the defendant be allowed to file certificate issued by the statutory auditor showing the sales figures of the defendant Company i.r.o ZEN iFATS and research and development expenses for all products, original invoices and documents showing participation of the defendant in the Exhibitions, documents under which defendant sent its subsystem for exhibition, e-mails received from organizers of exhibition showing that the plaintiff and defendant had participated in the same exhibition, in order to prove that the plaintiff was very well aware of the defendants using the trademark. It is submitted that the plaintiffs has, for the first time, filed sales, research and development figures of its own during evidence. The plaintiffs witness has also relied upon the Annual Report during his cross examination. Hence, the defendant be allowed to file the above documents to show its development efforts and amount spent by it. It is further stated that the plaintiff in the suit claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 20 lac but in the affidavits by way of evidence, it claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 75 crore without any basis and, thereforee, all above documents were very much essential to adjudicate upon the issues raised by the parties. The documents like E-Mails from the organizers of exhibitions, and about the participation of the plaintiff and defendant in the same exhibition, were necessary to prove on record the falsity of the plaintiffs witness who deposed that he became aware of the existence of defendant in middle of 2005. Some of the documents like corrigendum dated 14th January 2002 and 13th March 2002, office copy of the defendants bid to a tender, document under which the defendant sent its sub-systems for exhibition, letter issued by Ministry of Science and Technology were misplaced by the defendant when the defendant shifted its premises in 2005. These documents were now found while searching for some other files. The letter dated 12th March, issued by the plaintiffs

.representative to defendant is intended to show that the plaintiff company was aware of defendants product ZEN iFATS since 2001 but since the plaintiffs witness has denied the knowledge of defendants company till middle of 2005, filing of this letter is necessary.

3. In is No. 8308 of 2007, the defendant wants to bring on record additional documents filed by it with the affidavit of witnesses by way of evidence. It is stated that the defendant incidentally met the representative of M/s Logical Solutions Limited, Hyderabad on 30th March 2007 and was told that the said concern had sought clarification of tenders issued by the Government of India pursuant to which corrigendum dated 14th January 2002 and 13th March 2002 were issued. On this, defendants company requested M/s Logical Solutions to supply the copies of the correspondence in this regard. The M/s Logical Solutions asked for the documents under the Right to Information Act. These documents were received on 15th July by the defendants company from M/s Logical Solutions. These documents show that government tenders, issued on 25th May 2000/17th June 2001/5th December 2001, were global tenders for all manufacturers manufacturing the Firearms Training Systems (FATS). These documents were necessary to show that FATs was a generic term and was being used by the Government as well as by other manufacturers and production of these documents was necessary to throw light on the