M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

The defendant is the applicant in both applications and these applications have been taken out to eschew certain documents marked as exhibits in the suit, on the ground that the said exhibits are either inadmissible and/or in respect of which, the mode of proof and/or relevancy is under serious doubt and in spite of objections being raised at the time of marking the documents, the same have been received in evidence as exhibits.

2. Since the points urged by the applicant/defendant in these applications, are one and the same, the present applications are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the array of parties will be referred as plaintiff and defendant in C.S.No.979 of 2007.

3. The facts leading to the filing of these applications, shorn off unnecessary details, are as follows:-

3(i) The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.979 of 2007 against the applicant herein praying for a judgment and decree to declare that the respondent's product viz. TVS Flame, which uses the two spark plug with screw fitted and three valves, does not infringe the Patent No.195904 of Bajaj Auto Limited (applicant herein) and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from issuance of threats that the plaintiff is infringing the defendant's Patent No.195904 and from interfering with the launch and sale of the product TVS Flame, and also to direct the defendant to compensate the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1 crore for the damages sustained by it on account of unjustified threats made by the defendant.

3(ii) The applicant viz. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited, has filed a suit in C.S..No.1111 of 2007 against the respondent herein (M/s. TVS Motor Company Limited), praying for a judgment and decree for permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant therein from using the technology or manufacturing/marketing FLAME Motorcycle or any other product that allegedly infringes the applicant's (plaintiff therein) Patent No.195904.

3(iii) The facts relating to the litigation's in the form of above said suits, have been narrated in detail and in extenso in the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation's and reported in 2008 (36) PTC 417 (Mad.) (Bajaj Auto Limited v. Tvs Motor Company Limited) and 2009-3-L.W. 31 (Division Bench) (Tvs Motor Company Limited v. M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited), and therefore, it is not necessary to restate the same once again except to deal with the contentions put forth by the respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties in these applications.

3(iv) In respect of an order passed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the plaintiff filed an appeal in Civil Appeal No.6309 of 2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court vide order dated 16.9.2009, had directed the hearing of the suit to take place on day-to-day basis. Thereafter, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.10.2010, made in O.S.A.Nos.132 and 133 of 2010, had directed the plaintiff to produce evidence at the first instance, and thereafter, the documents that are brought on record, have to be marked. This Court vide order dated 10.12.2014, had directed the parties in both suits, to cooperate with the learned Master to complete the trial on or before 30.4.2015.

3(v) On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Harne Vinay Chandrakant filed his proof affidavit in lieu of chief-examination, as P.W.1 and according to the plaintiff, the defendant raised very many objections and as a consequence, the trial of the suit could not be proceeded with and therefore, the learned Additional Master No. II directed the plaintiff to approach the learned Judge for appropriate orders as to the objections raised by the defendant.

3(vi) In the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed A.No.413 of 2015 seeking leave of this Court to file certain additional documents, and also took out A.No.414 of 2015 praying for a direction for conducting the trial expeditiously.

3(vii) The learned Judge by a common order