$~66 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28^th January, 2026 + CM(M) 210/2026, CM APPL. 5590/2026 & CM APPL. 5591/2026 ZIMALAYA DRUGS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ravinder Kumar Yadav, Ms. Arti Anupriya, Mr. Kartikey, Mr. Paras Juneja, Ms. Kritika Yadav and Mr.

Naman Verma, Advocates.

versus DABUR INDIA LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Ms.

Akansha Singh, Ms. Saloni Raghuvanshi and Mr. Saransh Saini, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

ORDER (Oral)

Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, assailing the order dated 20^th May, 2025 passed by the trial court in CS(COMM) 1868/2019, whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant under Order VIII Rule 1 A (3) read with Section151oftheCodeofCivilProcedure,1908,seekingpermissiontoplace the additional documents on record, has been dismissed.

3. Learned Counsel for the respondent appeared on advance notice and accepts notice.

4. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court has passed the impugned order on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is argued that the documents sought to be placed on record are relevant for the proper adjudication of the case. These documents could not be filed earlier as they were lying with the previous counsel and could not be supplied to the petitioner on time.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the present petition has been filed only with a view to delay the trial. It is contendedthattheapplicationhasbeenmovedaftertheframingofissues,ata stagewhenthematterwasfixedfortheevidenceoftherespondent/plaintiff.It is submittedthat the trial courthaspassed awell-reasoned order.The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“8. Order 11 Rule 1 (7) CPC of The CC Act mandates that Defendant shall file a list of all documents in its power, possession, control and custody pertaining to the suit along with written statement including documents. As per Order 11 Rule 1 (9) CPC, the written statement must contain a Declaration on oath by defendant that all such documents in power and control of defendant relevant to proceedings have been disclosed.

9. In the case of Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan Vs. Vijay Kumar G.V. 2021 SCC online SC 734, Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with two categories of documents sought to be filed by the litigant of that case. Under one category, the documents were not in possession, power, or control of the plaintiff. That set of documents was allowed to be taken on record. Regarding the second category of documents, which were though inpower,possession and control of the plaintiff, but they were not earlier filed inadvertently, Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to take them on record.

10. Coming to the factual matrix, case of Defendant falls within second category. It is not the case of Defendant that it was not in possession, power or control of these documents. Apart from the copy-right registration certificate and trade-mark registration certificate, (which are already part of list of documents along with written statement), Defendant has not disclosed any ground much less plausible one, while praying to file the documents annexed at page no. 15to70oftheapplication,whicharecopiesofbills/receipts along with advertisements.

11. Defendant has also not filed the Statement of Truth with the written statement, specifically stating about those documents, which were within its power, possession and control pertaining to facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by Plaintiff nor the Affidavit of admission-denial of documents of Plaintiff has been filed by Defendant along with written statement.

12. The only plea of Defendant is that documents are sought to be filed pursua