JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the defendant-petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate order for quashing/setting aside order dated 12.09.2025, (Annexure-5) in connection with Original Suit No. 04 of 2017, passed by Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, wherein petition filed by Petitioner under Order VIII, Rule 1-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for acceptance of additional documents, has been rejected on the alleged ground that Petitioner has failed to establish reasonable cause for non- disclosure of the documents at the time of filing of Written Statement and, as such, Petitioner cannot be granted leave to produce documents at belated stage.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate order declaring that in terms of Order VIII, Rule 1-A of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, additional documents filed by Petitioner can be accepted at subsequent stage, as said additional documents are relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues involved between the parties and, as such, additional documents (as per List of Documents dated 04.09.2025) are required to be accepted by learned Court below.

2. The defendant-petitioner is the Proprietor of a shop known as ‘Chaganlal Madanlal & Sons Jewellers’, which is situated at Dhana Singh Building, New Purulia Road, Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, whereas, the plaintiffs-respondents are partners of a shop known as ‘Chhaganlal” or “Chhaganlal Dayaljee”, situated at Diagonal Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

3. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed Original Suit No.04 of 2017 against the present petitioner for infringement and passing of order under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with the following prayers:-

(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, her men, agents, servants, distributors, retailers, dealers, assigns or any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner infringing the Plaintiffs' trademark “CHHAGANLAL” OR “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” by use of identical/deceptively similar trade mark or any identical or similar mark to the Plaintiffs' registered trademark:

(b) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, her men, agents, servants or any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner from passing off her business as that of the Plaintiffs by use of the mark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” and/or any other mark deceptively and/or identically similar thereto.

(c) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, her men, agents, servants or any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner from using the logo by use of any other logo deceptively and/or identically similar to that of the Plaintiffs;

(d) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant, her men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from infringing the Plaintiffs' registered trademark by reproducing it or any substantial part thereof in any material form in any manner whatsoever.

(e) A decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant, her men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from using the said logo thereby infringing of copyright of the Plaintiff's artistic work;

(f) Delivery up and destruction of all packets having the Plaintiff's registered trademark including wrappers, letterhead and other materials bearing the mark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” and/or any other trademark identical and/or deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs:

(g) Enquiry into loss and damage and decree upon such sum as may be found due and payable;

(h) Receiver;

(i) Injunction;

(j) Costs:

(k) Further and/or reliefs:

4. In the suit so filed, the issues were framed and thereafter the plaintiffs-respondents led their evidence and concluded the same on 18.09.2024. Thereafter, it is the defendant-petitioner who wa