1132 January 13 2023

Supreme Court : Additional Documents not permitted under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC after 10 months

Patents & Trade Mark Cases


Sudhir Kumar S. Baliyan Vs. Vinay Kumar G.B.

Delivered by M.R. Shah, J. & Anirudhha Bose, J

Fact of the Case: 

The appellant ( Sudhir Kumar) was plaintiff filed the commercial suit before the Commercial Court pending in the court of learned ADJ interalia for claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant (Vinay Kumar G.B) from using the Trade Mark “INSIGHT”, “INSIGHT ACADEMY”, “INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY” and “INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS”.  As per provisions of Order XI Rule 1 applicable to the suit before commercial division of High Court or a commercial court, plaintiffs was required to file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, but plaintiff failed to do that hence plaintiff filed application under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of CPC , seeking leave of the Court to file additional documents and later it was dismissed by the Commercial Court however defendant also failed to file required documents therefore defendant filed an application under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents however concerned Court rejected the said application. Defendant preferred appeal to Hon’ble Delhi High Court and said application allowed.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.

Contention by the learned Senior Advocate appeared behalf of appellant, submitted that when the defendant was permitted to produce on record the additional documents along with written statements in exercise of powers under Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC (The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908), similarly the plaintiff also ought to have been permitted to place on record the additional documents which was as such are very much necessary for just decision of the suit. It is submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court was erred in holding that additional documents were produced by the plaintiff at a belated stage and the High Court has not appreciated the fact that the application seeking leave of the court to produce the additional documents was filed within 30 days of filing of the suit and therefore requirement under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the  (The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) was satisfied. Reason given by appellate that suit was filed on an urgent basis seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction and therefore the additional documents other than the invoices, which were bulky were not produced along with the plaint. It is submitted that therefore when the application for leave to produce the additional documents was filed within a period of 10 days from the date of filing of the suit i.e,
without any undue delay, the said application ought to have been allowed and plaintiff ought to have been permitted to produce the additional documents as mentioned in the application.

Contentions by the learned advocate appeared behalf of the respondent submitted that absence of cogent reasons it was rightfully dismissed by the Hon’ble Courts.

Court Observation:
We heard the both learned advocates and documents were very old and not in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing the plaint and now the plaintiff has found and we think same are very important for the adjudication of disputes between the parties.
We observed there was sufficient time gap between the filing of the first suit and filing of the second suit i.e., approximately 10 months and therefore when second suit was filed the plaintiff ws having sufficient time after filing of the first suit, to file the additional documents other than the invoices at the time when the second suit was filed. Therefore both courts below have rightly not permitted to plaintiff to rely upon the documents, other than the invoices as additional documents in exercise of the power under Order XI Rule 1(4) read with Order XI Rule 1 (5).

In such case, the plaintiff can be permitted to rely on the documents in the form of invoices as mentioned in the application as additional documents. However such productions shall not affect the outcome of interim injunction application submitted under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC, which as such is reported to be kept for orders.

In the view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court confirming the order passed by the learned Commercial Court dismissing the application submitted by the plaintiff to rely on the documents mentioned in application dated 13.09.2019, as additional documents is quashed and set aside to the extent not granting leave to the appellant.

**********************************  L E G A L F R E E . I N ***********************************

Note : This article is written by Adv. Alok Kumar practicing advocate in Delhi High Court, for any suggestions you may contact here advocatealok21@gmail.com and 9953184869

Author

avatar
Adv. ALOK KUMAR
Advocate Serving Delhi NCR
Delhi High Court & District Courts
LL.B.▪︎Faculty of Law▪︎Delhi University


Comments are not allowed on this article.