Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13833
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
ABY K. GEORGE – Appellant
Versus
DINEESH V.C. – Respondent
FAO 58 2020
VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT, SRI.C.HARIKUMAR, SRI.CHERIAN MATHEW POOTHICOTE, SRI.RENJITH RAJAPPAN, SRI.P.ABRAHAM CHERIAN, SMT.N.RAJI
The court established that a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Limitation Act is essential to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Headnote:
Trademark - Intellectual Property - Limitation Act - Section 5 - The court addressed the principles of condonation of delay in filing appeals and emphasized a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to ensure justice, ultimately allowing the appeal for the appellant to contest the trademark issue.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to set aside an ex parte decree in a trademark dispute, citing delays caused by illness and lack of counsel notification. The lower court dismissed the application, leading to the appeal.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application to set aside an ex parte decree was justified under the Limitation Act and if the appellant demonstrated sufficient cause.
Ratio Decidendi: A liberal approach is warranted in evaluating sufficient cause for delay in legal proceedings, especially where the interests of justice are at stake.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, and the ex parte decree is set aside.
J U D G M E N T
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. O.S.No.2 of 2010 before the District Court, Kozhikode was filed by the respondent seeking a decree of perpetual injunction from using the trademark, ‘CAMERA SCAN’. The appellant filed a counter-claim. The suit was decreed ex parte on 07.12.2018 and the counter-claim was dismissed. The appellant filed I.A.Nos.870 of 2019 and 871 of 2019 seeking to set aside the ex parte decree and for condonation of delay of 92 days. The 1st additional District Judge, Kozhikode as per the common order dated 13.08.2019 dismissed those applications. That order is under challenge in this appeal.
2. There was a delay of 210 days in filing this appeal.
The delay was condoned as per the order dated 04.11.2022 on payment of a costs of Rs.1000/- to the Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, which the appellant had paid. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. The appellant would contend that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘CAMERA SCAN’. But the respondent filed the suit disregarding that fact. The respondent however filed an appeal challenging the validity of the registration in favour of the appellant before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. In the light of the pendency of that appeal, the court below stayed the proceedings in O.S. No.2 of 2010 until the disposal of the proceedings before the Appellate Board. The court below in 2019 took up the suit for trial. The appellant did not know about the same. His counsel shifted practice to Ernakulam and therefore the counsel also did not get information in time. Moreover, the appellant who was based at Kottayam was suffering from illness during that period. Only on 05.03.2019, the appellant could get information regarding the fact that the suit was decreed exparte on 07.12.2008. He immediately filed I.A Nos.870 of 2013 and 871 of 2013.
4. The respondent opposed the said applications by filing a counter statement. The respondent attributed laches on the part of the appellant in appearing before the Court. Thus he maintained that there was no sufficient reason for condoning the delay or setting aside the ex parte decree. 6. The learned Additional District Judge did not accept the explanations furnished by the appellant for the delay in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It was observed that the date on which the appellant enquired about the suit to his counsel had not been stated in the petition. The Court below accordingly held that the appellant did not have bonafides in filing the petitions. Further, it was observed that the appellant moved on his wrong notions of fact and law and the delay and inaction occurred thereby cannot be condoned.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that considering that the delay is of a short period, and that the suit was pending for years together without any action on account of the stay, the petitions filed by the appellant should have been allowed. It is further submitted that the reasons stated by the Court below for doubting the bonafides of the appellants are not sound. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the laches on the part of the appellant is quite clear from his averments itself and therefore the impugned order cannot be said to be wrong.
8. In Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji [(1987)
2 SCC 107], in the context of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 , the Apex Court held that, the expression ‘sufficient cause’ employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice, that being the life-
purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts.
9. InEsha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy [ (2013) 12 SCC 649 ] the Apex Court while summari
