Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 5th November, 2024
CITY GLASS AND GLAZING PVT LTD .....Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate
Through: Mr. Surinder Singh and Mr. Deepankar Chugh, Advocates
JUDGMENT
1. This application has been filed under Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as applicable to commercial suits for taking on record additional documents referred to in paragraphs 7 and 9 of the application.
2. The present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction in respect of infringement of the registered patent of the plaintiff bearing No.287321 titled ‘A SELF LOCKING GLAZING SYSTEM’ (hereinafter ‘Suit Patent’).
3. The Plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers of self-locking glazing systems used in glass fittings all over India and abroad.
4. The Defendant is engaged in the business of selling Glass Fittings, Door Hardware, Kitchen and Furniture Fittings, Automatic Doors, Railing Fittings, etc. which includes products which allegedly infringes the plaintiff’s Suit Patent.
5. The present suit was filed on 13th March 2024 and was first listed before the Court on 20th March, 2024. On the said date, the Court gave liberty to the plaintiff to file additional documents. Pursuant to the said liberty, additional documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 22nd March, 2024.
6. On 27th March, 2024, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff being I.A. no.6578/2024 under Order XI Rule 1 (4) seeking leave to file additional documents which was allowed subject to the plaintiff filing the additional documents as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, additional documents were filed by the plaintiff on 24th April, 2024 along with its rejoinder in I.A. no.6578/2024.
8. Thereafter, on 30th April, 2024, when the suit was listed before the Court, submissions made on behalf of the defendant with regard to the suppression and fabrication on behalf of the plaintiff were noted by the Court. It was further noted that there were discrepancies in the dates of the invoices filed by the plaintiff, i.e. the patent number was appearing on the invoices even though the said invoices were issued prior to the grant of the patent.
9. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the aforesaid objections raised on behalf of the defendant and as noted in the order dated 30th April, 2024, the present application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 13th May,
2024. By way of the present application, the plaintiff seeks to place on record scanned copies of the original invoices corresponding to the tallygenerated invoices that were filed on behalf of the plaintiff along with its rejoinder in I.A. no.6578/2024 for the period of 2017-2018. Details of these invoices are given in paragraph 7 of the application.
10. The discrepancy between the tally-generated invoices filed earlier and the fresh invoices sought to be filed by way of the present application have been explained in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the application.
11. The plaintiff also wishes to place on record additional documents including bank account statements of the plaintiff company and the computer-generated ledger accounts of the plaintiff company for the period 1st April, 2017 to 31st March, 2018, in order to show that the plaintiff received payments in respect of the aforesaid invoices. The details of these documents are given in paragraph 9 of the application.
12. Notice was issued in this application on 16th May, 2024.
13. Reply to the application was filed on behalf of the defendant on 21st June, 2024 opposing the present application.
14. Rejoinder thereto was filed on 10th August, 2024.
SUBMISSIONS
15. Mr. Surinder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant has opposed the present application primarily on two grounds:-
(i) no sufficient cause had been provided by the plaintiff for filing these documents at such a belated stage. These documents were always in power and possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, should have been filed along with the plaint; and
(ii) these documents are new documents and are not the original documents in respect of the tally invoices that were filed earlier.
16. In support of his submissions, Mr. Singh relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71.
17. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the judgment in Sudhir Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the present case as the said judgment was in the context of Order XI Rule 1 (5) of CPC and whereas in the present case, the plaintiff seeks to file these documents in response to objections taken by the defendant in their defence.
18. Mr. Rao, relies upon the judgment of this Bench in Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. v. ARG Outlier Media Pvt Ltd, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1457 to submit that the additional documents sought to be filed are covered within the ambit of sub-rule (1)(c)(ii) of Rule (1) of Order XI which permits the plaintiff to file documents after filing of the plaint if the documents are being filed in response to a case set up by the defendants.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
19. I have heard the counsels for the parties.
20. In the present case, the written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant on 14th May 2024, whereas the present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff even before the filing of the written statement, i.e. on 13th May, 2024. The aforesaid documents have been filed so as to meet the objection raised by the defendant in his reply to I.A. no.6578/2024 as well as the objections taken before this Court on 30th April, 2024.
21. In my considered view, the suit is at a very initial stage. Issues are yet to be framed in the suit. In fact, the additional documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff even before the replication was filed on 12th July,
2024.
22. In terms of sub-rule (1)(c)(ii) of Order XI Rule 1 CPC, the plaintiff has the right to produce documents in answer to any case set up by the defendant subsequent to filing of the plaint. Therefore, there is no merit in the submission of the defendant that the aforesaid documents were always in the power and possession of the plaintiff and, therefore, should have been filed along with the plaint. Even if the said documents were in the in power and possession of the plaintiff during the time of filing the suit, the need for filing the aforesaid documents only arose on account of the stand taken by the defendant in his reply to I.A. no.6578/2024 and the objections taken before this Court on 30th April, 2024.
23. A perusal of the pleadings in the suit would show that the aforesaid documents sought to be filed are not contrary to the pleadings in the suit and no prejudice would be caused to the defendant if the same are allowed to be taken on record. In my considered view, these documents would also be relevant for the adjudication of the present suit.
24. In my view, the reliance placed by the defendant upon the judgment in Sudhir Kumar (supra) is misplaced. The judgment in Sudhir Kumar (supra) was in respect of the provisions of Order XI Rule 1(4) read with Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC in respect of filing additional documents after filing of the plaint in case of urgent listings. In the present case, documents are sought to be filed in response to the case set up by the defendant in its defence and therefore would be covered within the ambit of sub-rule (1)(c)(ii) of Order XI Rule 1 CPC in terms of which the plaintiff would be entitled to file the documents in response to a case set up by the defendant after filing of the plaint.
25. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the documents filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 13th May, 2024 are taken on record.
26. Needless to say, the fact that these documents have been taken on record would not establish the genuineness of the aforesaid documents. The defendant would have the right to object to the genuineness and validity of the aforesaid documents. I.A. 42536/2024 (seeking condonation of delay in filing replication)
27. Counsel for the defendant does not oppose this application.
28. Accordingly, the delay in filing the replication is condoned and the replication is taken on record.
29. Counsel for the defendant objects to the documents filed by the plaintiff on 10th August, 2024 and 17th September, 2024. He submits that these documents were filed much after the replication was filed.
30. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff seeks time to examine the issue.
31. List on 19th December, 2024. AMIT BANSAL, J NOVEMBER 5th, 2024 Vivek/-