A.No.264 of 2022

in C.S.No.334 of 1998

A.No.264 of 2022

in

C.S.No.334 of 1998

V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J,

This application has been filed to permit the applicant to file an additional

written statement in the above suit.

2. Originally, the suit was filed for infringement of copyright and passing

off by the defendants. The suit was filed in the year 1998 with interim

applications in O.A.Nos.212 and 213 of 1998 seeking interim reliefs against the

defendants, and this Commercial Division had taken cognizance of the suit on

01.07.2021. When the cognizance was taken by this Court, the defendants 1

and 2 have not filed their written statement. Hence, time was granted to the

learned counsel for the defendants to file their written statement on or before

26.07.2021. However, the written statement has not been filed by the learned

counsel for the defendants within the said time, rather a memo has been filed by

the learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 with a delay of two days,

adopting the counter affidavit filed in O.A.Nos.212 and 213 of 1998 as written

statement of the defendants.

3. Considering the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1998 and this

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.264 of 2022

in C.S.No.334 of 1998

Commercial Division had taken cognizance of the suit only on 01.07.2021, this

Court had taken the memo on file and directed the parties to file affidavits of

admissions and denial by 16.08.2021. Thereafter, the parties have filed their

statement of admissions / denial and issues were also framed by this Court.

Then, the defendants have taken out an application in A.No.4571 of 2021 for

filing additional documents in the suit. The same was opposed by the learned

counsel for the plaintiff as there was an inordinate delay in filing the said

application. However, the same was allowed by this Court subject to payment of

cost of Rs.30,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority on or

before 20.12.2021. The said cost has been paid by the defendants and

compliance has also been recorded by this Court on 22.12.2021. Now, the

defendants have filed this application seeking permission to file additional

written statement.

4. The said application is resisted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff

stating that the facts that are pleaded in the additional written statement have

already been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the defendant which has

been adopted as a written statement and no new facts are presented in the

proposed additional written statement. Further, it is stated that there is no

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.264 of 2022

in C.S.No.334 of 1998

sufficient reasons shown by the defendant to receive additional written

statement.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant / defendant would submit that

several developments have been taken place after filing of the suit and the

counter affidavit filed by the defendant. Hence, certain new defences are taken

in the additional written statement and the same should be taken on file, in

order to render complete justice to the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the defendant has also relied upon certain

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his case, which reads as

follows :

i) (2009) 15 SCC 528, Olympic Industries Vs. Mulla Hussainy

Bhai Mulla Akberally and Others.

ii) 2022 SCC Online SC 180, Prakash Corporates Vs. Dee Vee

Projects Limited.

iii) C.R.P.No.1119 of 1963, Ramaswami Naidu Vs. Pethu

Pillai

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.No.264 of 2022

in C.S.No.334 of 1998

7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant / defendant and the learned

counsel for the respondent / plaintiff.

8. To decide this issue, It would be relevant to extract the provisions

under Order 8, Rule 1 of CPC and it is extracted hereunder :

“Provided that where the defendant fails to file the written

statement within the said period of third days,