CS(COMM) 144/2019 Page 1 of 13

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 30^th May, 2022

Date of decision: 05^th July, 2022

+

CS(COMM) 144/2019 & IAs 4095/2019, 9172/2019

3M COMPANY

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. Amol

Dixit, Mr. Rohan J.Kapoor, Advs.

versus

MR. VIKAS SINHA & ANR

..... Defendants

Through:

Mr. Rohit Gandhi & Mr. Hargun

Singh Kalra, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

O.A.No.17/2022

1. By this appeal, the defendants/appellants are challenging the order

dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) in I.A.

No. 16400 of 2019 dismissing the said application filed by the

defendants/appellants, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the

written statement.

Factual Background

2. Before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels

for the parties, certain important dates would need reference to:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002447

CS(COMM) 144/2019 Page 2 of 13

2.1

This Court, vide its order dated 19.03.2019, was pleased to issue

summons to the defendants in the suit, while granting an ad-interim

injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from using

the plaintiff‟s trade/service marks/ name

and/or any mark

deceptively similar thereto. This Court was also pleased to appoint Local

Commissioner(s) to visit the premises of the defendants and carry out the

mandate of the commission as given in the said ad-interim order.

2.2

The Local Commissioner(s) executed the commission on

27.03.2019.

2.3

The defendant nos. 1 and 2 were formally served with the

summons on 22.04.2019, while the defendant no. 3 was served with the

summons on 23.04.2019.

2.4

The defendants filed an application, being I.A. No. 9172 of 2019

dated 10.07.2019, praying for an order of injunction under Order XXXIX

Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(in short, „CPC‟) restraining the plaintiff from approaching and/or writing

and/or communicating to the car manufacturers, authorized car dealers,

car detailing centres, workshops and other dealers making or purporting

to make wrongful representations against the defendant no. 1 which could

cause damage to the reputation and goodwill of the defendant no. 1 or

disparage the business of the defendant no. 1 in any manner, during the

pendency of the present suit.

2.5

The defendants thereafter filed their written statement on

19.08.2019, that is, on the 118^th day of service of summons.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002447

CS(COMM) 144/2019 Page 3 of 13

2.6

The suit was listed before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) for

further proceedings on 20.08.2019, when it was pointed out to the learned

counsel for the defendants that the written statement, the affidavit of

admission/denial of the plaintiff‟s documents, and the documents filed

were not on record. The statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff

was also recorded to the effect that the written statement had not been

filed within the statutory period. On this submission, the learned counsel

for the defendants sought time for filing an appropriate application

seeking condonation of delay in filing of the written statement.

2.7

The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submits that the

office objection on the written statement was finally raised by the

Registry of this Court on 15.11.2019, and the said written statement was

returned under objection to the defendants/appellants only on 18.11.2019.

The same was immediately thereafter re-filed on 20.11.2019, and an

application seeking condonation of delay in filing of t