CM(M)-IPD 7/2022Page 1 of 6

$~14

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 23.03.2022

+

CM(M)-IPD 7/2022 & CM APPL. 13590/2022, 13591/2022

REDIFF.COM INDIA LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Vakul Sharma, Advocate

versus

M/S LACOSTE S.A. & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JYOTI SINGH, J (ORAL)

1.

Present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India laying a challenge to the orders dated 23.10.2021, passed by the

learned Trial Court in case titled M/s. Lacoste SA. v. M/s. Rediff.com India

Ltd. and Ors. in TM No.24/2016. Petitioner herein was Defendant No.1 in

the suit and Respondent No.1 herein was the Plaintiff.

2.

By the first impugned order, learned Trial Court granted adjournment

to the Plaintiff to produce the Authorised Representative as a witness on the

ground that the witness was unwell, subject to payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/- to the Defendant, within four weeks. Plaintiff was further

directed to file the affidavits of other witnesses, within ten days as last

opportunity and to ensure that all witnesses were present on the next date of

hearing. List of witnesses, if not filed were directed to be filed by the

parties within six weeks and the matter was posted for Plaintiff’s evidence

on 24.03.2021, 25.03.2021 and 26.03.2021. It is averred by the Petitioner

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001220

CM(M)-IPD 7/2022Page 2 of 6

that there is a typographical error in the impugned order with respect to the

dates as the dates were actually 24.03.2022, 25.03.2022 and 26.03.2022.

3.

On the same day, as the record shows, the matter was again taken up

in the later part of the day on an application being filed on behalf of the

Plaintiff for waiver of the cost, on the ground that the counsel was held up

on the first call of the matter and could not appear in the Court and non-

appearance of the Representative/witness was for no fault of the witness.

Counsel for the Plaintiff assured the Court that the witnesses shall be

present on the next date of hearing.

4.

Looking to the submissions made by the counsel for the Plaintiff,

learned Trial Court recalled the order to the extent of imposition of cost and

recorded the undertaking of the counsel for the Plaintiff that he shall inform

the opposite side of the said order and communicate the order passed.

5.

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the learned Trial

Court has failed to appreciate the provisions of Order 16 CPC, while

granting another adjournment to the Plaintiff/Respondent No.1 herein on

23.10.2021 to file the Plaintiff’s evidence, despite passage of two and a half

years from the date of framing of issues. In doing so, the Court has ignored

its previous three orders including the order dated 08.11.2019 wherein it

was recorded that no further opportunity would be granted for Plaintiff’s

evidence since the Plaintiff has already been afforded several opportunities

and the issues were framed way back on 16.12.2017.

6.

It is further contended that while the Trial Court had granted

adjournment subject to imposition of cost, when the matter was taken up in

the morning but contrary to the said order, in the later part of the day the

order to the extent of the cost was recalled, without any reason and in the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001220

CM(M)-IPD 7/2022Page 3 of 6

absence of counsel for the Defendant. It is the grievance of the learned

counsel that the Plaintiff is only delaying the matter and grant of further

opportunity is not in the interest of expeditious disposal of the suit. It is

further prayed that the impugned orders be stayed.

7.

I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the

impugned orders.

8.

It is undisputed that the suit is at the stage of trial and slated for

Plaintiff’s evidence on 24.03.202