ORDER

This petition by the plaintiff in Com.O.S.1019/2021 is directed against the impugned common order dated 08.09.2023 passed on I.A.Nos. 10 to 13 by the X Addl.District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short ‘the commercial court’), whereby the said applications filed by the petitioner – plaintiff to re-open the case to produce additional documents, to recall the order dated 11.01.2023 and to recall PW-1 for further evidence were dismissed by the commercial court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

3. The material on record discloses that the petitioner –

plaintiff has instituted the aforesaid suit against the respondent – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs alleging passing of infringement of its trade mark. The said suit is being contested by the respondent – defendant. At the stage of final arguments, the petitioner – plaintiff filed the instant applications for permission to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence on the ground that the said documents were not available and was not in the custody or possession of the petitioner – plaintiff at the time of filing the suit and as such, they could not have been produced along with the plaint as required under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the said Act of 2015’). The said applications having been opposed by the respondent, the commercial court proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the applications, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the Commercial court has rejected the applications on the ground that the petitioner has not exercised any due diligence for not producing these documents earlier, since the documents were within the knowledge of the petitioner when he had earlier filed I.A.6 seeking same relief of production of documents, which was allowed by the commercial court. Under these circumstances, the commercial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not exercised any due diligence in not producing the said documents which could not be permitted at the belated stage of arguments.

5. In my considered opinion, in the affidavits filed in support of the applications, the petitioner has not only given details as to how the additional documents are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the suit as indicated by him in paragraphs-5 to 9 of the affidavit, at paragraphs 10 to 13, the petitioner – plaintiff has also stated as to why the said additional documents could not be produced along with the plaint in the suit as required under Order 11 Rule 1(5) of the said Act of 2015. The reasons assigned by the petitioner – plaintiff in the affidavits filed in support of the applications regarding relevancy as well as its inability and omission to produce the documents earlier along with the plaint, clearly constitute valid and sufficient grounds to permit the petitioner to produce the said documents and lead further oral evidence especially having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the suit between the parties. It is also relevant to state that no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the respondent if the petitioner is put on terms by issuing directions regarding production of documents and the respondent would be entitled to cross-examine the petitioner on all aspects of the matter including the additional documents. The commercial court while rejecting the applications of the petitioner has adopted a hyper technical approach in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of his documents earlier while filing I.A.6, which could not have been made the basis to deny the petitioner one more opportunity to adduce further evidence which is relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issues in controversy between the parties. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned