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