JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, CJ., Rajesh Shankar, J.
Rita Verma – Petitioner
versus
Chetan Adesera and Ors. – Respondents
C.M.P. No.1086 of 2025
Decided on 20.11.2025

IMPORTANT POINT
Production of additional documents – Laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII, Rule 1-A – Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Section 134 – Suit for permanent injunction – Infringement and passing off – Rejection of petition for acceptance of additional documents on the ground that Petitioner has failed to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing of Written Statement – Procedural and technical hurdles cannot be allowed to come in way of court while doing substantial justice – Litigation is nothing but journey towards truth which is foundation of justice – Suit filed before Commercial Court has to be decided expeditiously – However, that does not mean that proceedings are not to be conducted in accordance with law – Trial Court has failed to consider that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws – Procedures have always been viewed as handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice – All rules of procedures are handmaid of justice – Impugned order set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by petitioner to Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.

Held: It is the settled legal proposition that the suit filed before the Commercial Court has to be decided expeditiously as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585. However, that does not mean that proceedings are not to be conducted in accordance with law. The principle does not apply in the instant case for the simple reason that the suit, which is the subject matter of the lis, was filed way back in the year 2017 and as observed above, the plaintiffs themselves closed their evidence only on 18.09.2024 and it is not in dispute that thereafter the defendant is leading her evidence and has already examined 07 witnesses. That apart, it is not even the finding recorded by the Trial Court that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant-petitioner are not relevant for the just and proper decision of the case.

The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. Procedures have always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice. All the rules of procedures are handmaid of justice.

Procedural and technical hurdles cannot be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. After all, the court should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. [Refer: Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by Lrs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs & Anr, (2003) 3 SCC 272; Constitutional Bench’s judgment Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors, (2005) 4 SCC 480, Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774; State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, (1976) 1 SCC 719].

In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated above, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed. The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.04 of 2017 is set aside. However, this order will be subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. (Paras 13, 14, 17 and 21)

Result: CMP allowed.