Registrar's discretion under Rule 48 to allow additional evidence at any time upheld unless exercised perversely; appeal maintainable despite Section 131(2).

JUDGMENT

The second respondent filed Trademark Application No.3710972 before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai. The appellant lodged Opposition No.1025120 in relation thereto. After parties filed affidavits in support of the opposition and application, respectively, the second respondent filed an application for expedited hearing on 12.03.2025. A notice of hearing was issued pursuant thereto. At that juncture, the second respondent lodged an interlocutory petition on 16.09.2025 for filing additional documents. Such petition was filed under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act). The application was allowed by order dated 17.03.2026, which is impugned herein.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the second respondent failed to explain the inordinate delay in lodging the interlocutory petition and that sufficient cause was not shown. She places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj and others v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer , MANU/SC/0850/2013. She also submits that Rule 48 is required to be construed strictly. In support of this contention, the judgment of the Delhi High Court in ITC Limited v. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and Others , MANU/DE/1836/2024, wherein the corresponding Rule 53 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 was construed, is relied on.

3. Learned counsel also contends that the appellant was not granted time to make any submissions in relation to the additional documents and that the appellant would be gravely prejudiced unless, at a minimum, time is granted to make submissions thereon.

4. In response, learned senior counsel for the second respondent opened his submissions by contending that an appeal under Section 91 of the TM Act is not maintainable in respect of an order under Section 131. He relies on subsection (2) of in this regard. Without prejudice, he contends that Rule 48 of the TM Rules confers wide discretion on the Registrar and that such power may be exercised at any time. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagatjit Industries Limited v. Intellectual Property Appellant Board and Others , (2016) 4 SCC 381, particularly paragraph 17 thereof, he contends that the power under is ministerial and that even a hearing is not necessary before such power is exercised.

5. Section 91 of the TM Act enables a party to file an appeal against any order or decision of the Registrar. This should be read in harmony with Section 131. As contended by learned senior counsel for the second respondent, subsection (2) of rules out an appeal from an order of the Registrar under this Section. Nonetheless, it should be noticed that the order was issued by exercising discretionary powers under Rule 48 of the TM Rules, although the petition was filed under . In these circumstances, I conclude that the appeal is maintainable.

6. Rule 48 reads as under:

“48. Further evidence.- No further evidence shall be left on either side, but in any proceedings before the Registrar, he may at any time, if he thinks fit, give leave to either the applicant or the opponent to leave any evidence upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as he may think fit.

7. It is evident from the text of Rule 48 that the Registrar is empowered to grant leave to either the applicant or the opponent at any time to adduce additional evidence on such terms as to costs or otherwise as deemed fit. By exercising such power, the Registrar concluded that a reasonable explanation had been provided by the second respondent for the delay in filing the ad