SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 421

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
 
Condor Footwear (India) Limited & Anr. - Plaintiffs 
Versus 
Nexgen Footwear Private Limited & Ors. – Defendants
CS(COMM) 605 of 2024 & I.A. 34116 of 2024
Decided On : 22-08-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Manish Biala, Advocate.
For the Defendants :Mr. Utsav Garg, Advocate.

In commercial litigation, parties must comply with strict rules on document disclosure; late submissions are only permissible under specified conditions.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Provisions regarding filing of documents - Defendants contested the admission of documents filed by Plaintiffs along with replication, arguing it was unauthorized and belated without proper application, contravening Order XI Rule 1(4) and (5) of CPC. Court allowed the documents, stating they were part of pleadings and not prejudicial. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Pleadings - The court emphasized that the rules governing commercial suits require all documents to be included with the plaint or within the prescribed time after obtaining leave, failing which the documents cannot be considered. (Paras 10-11)

(C) Representation and Response - Documents filed by Plaintiffs were deemed responsive to the Defendants' objections, justifying their admission. (Paras 22).

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. filing of original appeal regulations (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendants’ objections to plaintiffs' additional documents (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. procedural requirements for filing additional documents (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. citations supporting timely presentation of documents in commercial suits (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. plaintiffs' stance and response to defendants' claims (Para 13 , 14)
6. replication rules in response to written statements (Para 15 , 16)
7. justification for documents filed by plaintiffs (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. dismissal of the appeal with directions (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

OA No.74/2025

1. This is an Original Appeal filed by Defendants under Rule 5 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“DHC Rules”) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) against the Order dated 17.01.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court in CS(COMM) No.605/2024.

2. Vide Impugned Order, the learned Joint Registrar has held as under:

“The pleadings have been completed.

The counsel for the defendant is objecting to the taking on record of the documents filed by the plaintiff alongside the replication. The objection is overruled since the documents are part of the pleading i.e. the replication & are not causing any prejudice at this stage.

The parties shall now file the photocopies of their admitted-documents, if not already filed and the joint schedule of the documents.

List the matter for admission-denial and making of exhibits on 25.03.2025.

3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Defendants that the documents filed by the Plaintiffs along with the Replication was in response to the specific plea taken by the Defendants that the Plaint did not show any cause of action arising against the Defendants to show that the Defendants were using the alleged Trade Mark. The Plaintiffs filed the additional documents along with their Replication without moving an appropriate application under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (“CC Act”)

4. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Defendants that the documents filed along with the Replication were belated as they were filed four months after filing of the present Suit. Hence, the documents were erroneously allowed to be taken on record by the learned Joint Registrar vide Impugned Order despite the objections by the Defendants.

5. It was submitted that the learned Joint Registrar has taken on record the documents filed by the Plaintiffs at a belated stage and in a mechanical manner without considering the objections of the Defendants that no Application under Order XI Rule 15 of the CPC, as amended by the CC Act, to establish any reasonable cause for non-disclosure of these documents along with the Plaint.

6. It was submitted that the learned Joint Registrar while passing the Impugned Order observed that “..... since the documents are part of the pleading i.e. the replication & are not causing any prejudice at this stage.” It was further submitted that this observation is erroneous as the Impugned Order does not consider the requirements under Order XI Rule 1(4) and (5) of CPC, as amended by CC Act, that the plaintiff can only file additional documents within a period of thirty days from the date of filing the suit after obtaining leave of the Court. The Impugned Order allowed the additional documents to be taken on record despite the same being in power, possession, control, and custody of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have not stated that these documents were earlier in possession of the Plaintiffs at the time of filing of the present Suit. Although, the Plaintiffs had hired an investigator whose affidavit has been filed along with the Plaint, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to rely upon Additional Documents unless the express statutory provision under Order XI Rule 1(5) of CPC, as amended by CC Act is complied with by the Plaintiffs showing reasona

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top