The court's decision emphasized that the question of law directly and substantially in issue in the suit did not require intervention in public interest and refused to exercise its powers under Section 151 CPC to entertain the prayers in the application.

I.A. No. 9964/2016 (filed by Micromax Informatics Pvt. Ltd. u/O 1 Rule 8 A r/w Section 151 CPC for intervention)

1. This is an application filed by the Applicant/Micromax Informatics Private Limited (Micromax) under Order 1 Rule 8A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking intervention in the present suit filed by the Plaintiff, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) [Ericsson] against the Defendant, Lava International Limited (Lava).

2. The Applicant, Micromax, seeks to intervention in the present suit on the ground that the issues involved in the present suit are identical to the issues involved in the suit filed by the Ericsson against Mercury Electronics Limited and Micromax in CS (OS) No. 442 of 2013 which has been filed in the month of March 2013 i.e., much prior in time than the filing of the present suit.

3. In para 4 of the application, in a tabular form, the sum and substance in both the suits which have been filed alleging infringement of Ericssons patent by the respective Defendants is set out.

4. The apprehension expressed by Micromax is that both the suits by Ericsson involve the issue of validity of Ericssons patent and that if the said issue is decided in the suit filed against Lava, i.e., CS (OS) No. 764/2015 in an earlier point in time, such finding would adversely affect Micromax in CS (OS) No. 442 of 2013 when it comes for hearing at a subsequent point in time. This submission is based on the fact that the final hearing in the present suit is slated to commence on 22nd August 2016 whereas the final hearing in CS (OS) No. 442 of 2013 is not yet scheduled since the evidence in the said suit is yet to conclude.

5. Mr. Amit Sibal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Applicant/Micromax has relied upon the decision of this Court in S.C. Jain v. Bindeshwari Devi, (1997) 67 DLT 189 to urge that the Court should hear simultaneously both the suits so that there be no conflict of opinion that might be referred to in either suit which should be avoided. Mr. Sibal submits that no prejudice would be caused to either Ericsson or Lava if such an order is passed.

6. Order 1 Rule 8A of the CPC reads as under:-

“8A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of person to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings

While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify.”

7. The expression question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit is followed by the expression it is necessary in the public interest to allow intervention" thereby indicating that the question as contemplated is in the nature of a substantive question of law which affects a large number of persons or body of persons. In the context in which the present suit has been filed, where one of the issues in both the suits concerns the validity of the Ericssons patent, the Court is unable to view such a question as the substantial of question of law that requires intervention in public interest. Moreover, the provision does not contemplate the intervention by a party much less by a party which is itself a party to the substantive suit in which one of the questions is similar to the question that arises in the suit in which such party seeks intervention.

8. The mere apprehension that the question could be determined in the present suit on the issue of validity of Ericssons patent, may be adverse to Micromax is not a sufficient ground for ordering that both suits will be heard simultaneously. Also, the recording of the evidence in the present suit has concluded with the suit having reached the stage