A defendant's right to fair trial is violated when ex parte judgments are made without proper service and consideration of filed written statements.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Sundar, J.)

Captioned 'Original Side Appeal' ['OSA' for the sake of brevity] is directed against an ex parte 'judgment and decree dated 05.06.2024 made in C.S (Comm.Div.) No.1 of 2024' [hereinafter 'impugned judgment and decree' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. One 'Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited' [hereinafter 'PFIPL' for the sake of brevity] filed a suit against one 'Mansarowar Ispat (India) Pvt. Ltd.,' [hereinafter 'MIPL' for the sake of brevity] seeking inter-alia injunctive reliefs as regards Trade Marks 'TIRUMALA' and/or 'TIRUMALA GOLD' with usual prayers for accounts, delivery of alleged offending material and costs. This suit, for convenience can be referred to as a 'typical Trade Mark suit'.

3. Plaint of PFIPL is dated 20.11.2023 but it was presented in the Commercial Division of this Court only on 08.12.2023. Therefore, the date of presentation of suit is 08.12.2023 but the date of institution of suit is not readily available. However, the first listing before the Commercial Division i.e., first listing of the suit along with two interlocutory (injunction) applications thereat (O.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2024) was on 04.01.2024. To be noted, O.A.No.5 of 2024 is for an interim injunction i.e., interlocutory order qua alleged infringement and O.A.No.6 of 2024 is for interim injunction i.e., interlocutory order qua alleged passing off.

4. On 04.01.2024, notice in the afore-referred interlocutory applications was ordered and on being served with notice, MIPL, the sole defendant entered appearance through counsel and vakalatnama given by MIPL to its counsel is dated 29.01.2024. There is no disputation that counsel for MIPL (sole defendant) got the vakalatnama noted by counsel for plaintiff (PFIPL) on 29.01.2024 itself. However, the vakalatnama was filed in the Registry only on 14.02.2024. Thereafter, the aforementioned two interlocutory applications i.e., O.A.Nos.5 and 6 of 2024 came to be disposed of i.e., closed by the Commercial Division in and by an order dated 05.04.2024 inter alia saying that granting of the interlocutory reliefs sought would tantamount to granting reliefs in the main suit itself. After 05.04.2024, MIPL filed written statement dated 20.04.2024 and this written statement, according to the official website of this Court, has been e-filed by MIPL on 23.04.2024. There is no disputation that counsel for plaintiff (MIPL) was favoured with a copy of the written statement. In such a scenario, on 26.04.2024, Hon'ble Commercial Division made an order in the main suit saying that written statement has not been filed, defendant is set ex parte, there was a further direction to list the matter before learned Master on 29.04.2024 and there was another further directive to list the matter before Commercial Division on the very next day i.e., 30.04.2024 'FOR JUDGMENT'. Ex parte evidence was let in before learned Master (MIPL did not get an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent i.e., PW1 and Exs.P1 to P23 were marked). Thereafter, on 05.06.2024, the impugned judgment and decree (ex parte judgment) came to be made.

5. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree (ex parte judgment) MIPL, the lone defendant is on appeal vide captioned OSA before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' ['CAD']. To be noted, captioned OSA is obviously an intra-court appeal inter alia under Section 13 of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Act 4 of 2016]' [hereinafter 'CCA' for the sake of brevity].

6. In the hearing today, Mr.G.Ramesh along with Ms.N.Hansika of M/s.Mission Legal (Law Firm) for t