M/S CAPITAL METERS LIMITED v. M/S S. JOHNFLEX INDUSTRIES

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 25.05.2015 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby IA No.1072/2015 filed by the appellant/defendant seeking to bring certain documents was rejected. The documents which were sought to be brought on record are as under:- “(i) The photographs of the products under the trademark Capital carrying the 2015:DHC:5206-DB manufacturing year 1987.

(ii) The ITCC Certificate for the financial year

1987-88.

(iii) The NSIC certificate dated 22.05.1990

(iv) KSEB Registration certificate dated

06.12.1988.

(v) The letter dated 27.03.1987 issued by the

(vi) No Objection Certificate from UP

(ix) The ISI License valid since the year 1987.

(x) Surrender letter of defendant no.1 of BIS

2. The learned Single Judge noted that these documents were always available with the defendants/appellants at all times. We may also point out that the said suit was filed in the year 2004. Initially, a written statement was filed by the defendants which was subsequently amended in the year 2008. Issues were framed in the year 2009 and the plaintiffs‟ evidence was concluded in the year 2012. Three years later, in the current year, i.e., 2015, the said application being IA 1072/2015 was filed to bring on record the documents which were, at all times, available with the defendants. A flimsy explanation had been attempted to be given for the non-production of the said documents at an earlier stage. The same can be discerned from paragraph 4 of the application which reads as under:-

3. The learned Single Judge has correctly noted that, at this stage, the defendants (appellants herein) cannot be permitted to rely on the same and that the application does not indicate diligence and seriousness of the defendants. In our view, this is only an attempt to delay the proceedings in the suit.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants placed before us a judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi and Anr. v. Chinnammal Rayyammal and Ors.: (2009) 13 SCC 25 in an attempt to support his argument that this Court ought to take the said documents on record. First of all, the said decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi (supra) was one under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC which is entirely different from the situation which obtains in the present case. Under that provision, the Court may send for the papers from its own record or from other Courts. Here the documents were available with the appellants at all times and admittedly so. The explanation sought to be given by the appellants, as noted above, is clearly untenable. It is in the context of Order XIII Rule 10 that the Supreme Court in Lakshmi (supra) made the observation in paragraph 12 which is reproduced herein below: