Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Sudhir Kumar @ S Baliyan - Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar G.B. - Respondent
C.M. (M) No. 181 of 2021
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Additional Documents - Trade Mark Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 14(3) - Order XI Rule 1 - The court discussed the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which requires the plaintiff to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with the plaint. The court highlighted the requirement for the plaintiff to give a declaration on oath that all documents have been disclosed and the prohibition on relying on documents not disclosed along with the plaint without leave of the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a suit claiming for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent from using certain trade marks. The petitioner sought leave of the Court to file additional documents on record, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. The petitioner then filed a petition challenging the order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioner failed to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint. The Court also noted that the petition was filed to cover up deficiencies pointed out by the Trial Court and was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Issues: The issues included the admissibility of additional documents, the requirement for the plaintiff to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, and the prohibition on relying on undisclosed documents without leave of the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that the plaintiff must establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents along with the plaint. The Court also highlighted that the leave of the Court to file additional documents cannot be claimed as a matter of parity.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 35,000/-.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-10 (Central) in Suit, being TM No.123 of 2019, titled Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G B &Ors., dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking leave of the learned Trial Court to place additional documents on record.
2. The above suit has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia claiming for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent from using the Trade Mark "INSIGHT", "INSIGHT ACADEMY",
"INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY" and "INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS". The petitioner filed the above-referred application in the said suit, seeking leave of the Court to file certain additional documents on record. The same has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner on the ground that the documents/invoices were suspicious in nature and that there was no explanation given as to why they were not forming part of the plaint. He submits that apart from various invoices, the petitioner had sought leave to place on record in form of the additional documents advertisements which are in public domain, etc. These could not have been disallowed as being suspicious in nature.
4. He further submits that in the present case, by the judgment dated 07.12.2020 of this Court, passed in CM(M) Nos.544 and 547 of 2020, titled Vinay Kumar G B v. Sudhir Kumar @ S. Balyan, the respondent also had been allowed to place additional documents on record. He submits that therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner is granted a similar opportunity to file additional documents on record and the same being considered by the learned Trial Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. She submits that though the Impugned Order is dated 13.11.2019, the present petition was filed only on 01.03.2021. The trigger for filing of the present petition is the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule(s) 1 and 2 of the Code.
6. On merit, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for grant of leave of the Court to file such additional documents. She submits that prior to the filing of the present Suit, the petitioner had filed a Suit, being Trade Mark Suit No. 236 of 2018. In the said Suit, the respondent had filed its written statement denying the assertion of the petitioner of adoption and use of the trademark as claimed by him since 2006. Though the petitioner had filed his replication in the said Suit, the documents now sought to be placed on record were neither filed nor any mention thereof had been made in the replication. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the said Suit, and subsequently, filed the present Suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, again the documents which are now sought to be placed on record, were not filed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the application under Order XXXIX Rule(s) 1 and 2 of the Code filed along with the plaint in the present Suit, was heard by the learned Trial Court on 09.09.2019 on the plea of the petitioner for ad-interim injunction. The same was listed for orders on 13.09.2019. She asserts that in the course of arguments, the respondent had submitted before the learned Trial Court that there were no documents filed along with the plaint in support of the assertion of the plaintiff/petitioner, of having adopted and use of the trademark since 2006. It is only thereafter, that the application which has now been dismissed by t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with the pl....
The court emphasized the strict adherence to document filing rules in commercial disputes, denying late submission of documents without establishing reasonable cause for prior non-disclosure.
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.
The court established that non-filing of documents due to negligence does not constitute reasonable cause for allowing additional evidence under the CPC.
The judgment establishes the importance of establishing a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing the plaint, emphasizes the distinction between 'non-disclosure' and 'n....
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict disclosure obligations, requiring all documents to be submitted at the outset. Late submissions necessitate a clear justification for non-disclosure, which w....
The court ruled that timely disclosure of evidence is critical under the Commercial Courts Act, and failure to show reasonable cause for delays can result in exclusion of documents at trial.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
