VIPIN SANGHI, J.

O.A. No.84/2016

1. This chamber appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2016 passed by the learned Joint Registrar dismissing the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC i.e. I.A. No.1446/2016. The suit seeking permanent injunction, passing off, delivery up and unfair trade practices and rendition of accounts was filed by the plaintiff in April 2004. The issues in the suit were framed on 02.12.2013. The recording of evidence is in progress before the Local Commissioner. The plaintiffs witness PW-1 has been under cross examination. At that stage the plaintiff moved the aforesaid application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC seeking to place on record three sets of documents relating to the audited statement of accounts of the plaintiff. These documents were sought to be produced to substantiate the sales figures and turnover of the plaintiffs under the trademark POLYFLOR since 1997, upto 2013.

2. The first set of documents sought to be produced are photocopies of annual report of the plaintiff, which includes the annual report of its predecessor, for the year 1997-99. The second set is the original duly audited annual report for the year ending 30.06.2001 and 30.06.2003. The third set of original annual reports are of the plaintiff company for the years ended on 30.06.2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013.

3. The learned Joint Registrar in his order takes note of the fact that the original suit was filed in the year 2004; the documents sought to be produced were neither filed alongwith the plaint, nor at the stage of admission/denial of documents, nor even at the stage of framing of issues on 02.12.2013; PW-1 is under cross examination and had been substantially cross examined when the application was moved on 27.01.2016. The learned Joint Registrar has observed that vague and non convincing reasons have been given by the plaintiff for not filing the documents earlier, and unjustifiable reason has been given as to why, when the documents were in the domain and control of the plaintiff, the same were not filed at the appropriate stage, or even at the stage of framing of issues.

4. So far as the documents pertaining to the years after 2004 are concerned, the Joint Registrar has also observed that they do not appear to be relevant, as they reflect the sales figures post the filing of the suit, whereas the claim of the plaintiff for damages upon rendition of accounts is limited to Rs.20 lacs, which would have to be substantiated on the basis of the claim of sales/goodwill for the period prior to the filing of the suit.

5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stage at which the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) was moved is not relevant. What is relevant to be examined is whether the documents are germane. It also needs to be appreciated that the documents are audited accounts of the plaintiff company, and their authenticity is beyond doubt. Learned counsel submits that no prejudice would have been suffered by the defendant even if the plaintiff was permitted to place on record the additional documents at this stage, and the defendant could have been compensated by way of costs for the inconvenience suffered.

6. Learned counsel submits that the power of the court to permit filing of additional documents at any stage of the proceedings is not taken away under the law, and in the interest of justice, the court can grant permission to produce additional documents even at the final stage of proceedings, and even at the appellate stage. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Smt. Shantibai K Vardhan v. Meera G Patel, Appeal No.86/2008 decided on 29.08.2008.

7. Learned counsel for the defendants has appeared even before issuance of notice in this chamber appeal, and he has advanced his submissions.

8. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that there is absolutely no justification for see