Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order : 27th March, 2023
DABUR INDIA LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. R. Jawahar, Mr. Anuj Garg and Mr. PDV Srikar, Advocates
Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Advocate for D-1 Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Ankur Sangal, Ms. Pragya Mishra, Mr. Trisha Nag and Mr. Raghu Sinha, Advocates for D-2
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
Order VII Rule 14(3))
JUDGMENT
1. The present applications under Order VII Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking filing of the additional documents on the ground that the documents are necessary for the proper adjudication of the captioned suit filed for declaration and permanent, mandatory injunction.
2. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the defendant NO. 1 subsequent to the filing of the instant suit, refused to entertain any Independent Review Process (hereinafter “IRP”)/Fast Track Complaint (hereinafter “FTC”) from the plaintiff even in respect of any independent and even unrelated advertisements, citing the pendency of the suit as a ground. On the other hand, the defendant no. 1 has been accepting and deciding complaints etc. against the plaintiff, which in fact is closely related to the subject matter of the instant suit. It is submitted that the defendant NO. 1 is conducting its affairs in an arbitrary manner.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff submitted that certain documents pertaining to the correspondence between the parties regarding the aforesaid are necessary for adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks leave to file a copy of Legal Notice dated 28th May 2021 on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant, the response thereto dated 17th June 2021 on behalf of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff is also seeking to file the mail correspondence between the parties.
4. It is further submitted that the plaintiff instituted a suit bearing Suit
(L) No. 20564/2021 against the defendant no. 1 challenging the provisions of the order of the Advertising Standards Council of India (hereinafter “ASCI”) before the Bombay High Court, wherein certain interim applications have also been filed. It is submitted that the additional documents are relevant for the proper adjudication of the present suit as they demonstrate the defendant no.1's unlawful and biased conduct and impugned provisions of the ASCI Code, which are ex-facie violative of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, fundamentally infirm in law, contrary to basic notions of morality and justice, and are also violative of the principles of natural justice.
5. Therefore, the plaintiff prays that it may be allowed to file the additional documents that are necessary for the proper adjudication of captioned suit.
6. Per Contra, Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the defendant no. 2 vehemently opposed the instant application and submitted that the plaintiff shall not bring on record any such documents that are neither related to the instant suit nor relevant for its adjudication.
7. It is submitted that by way of filing the instant application and bringing on record the aforesaid documents, the plaintiff is attempting to raise questions which are not substantial to the instant suit and are not necessary for determining the real question and controversy between the parties. Learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Gupta vs. Ranbir B. Goyal, (2002) 2 SCC 256 and N.C. Bansal vs. Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Another, (2018) 2 SCC 347 to support his arguments.
8. It is also submitted that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to bring on record any document at such a belated stage of the suit without any justifiable cause made out to bring the same on record. It is a settled position of law that additional documents in a commercial suit can only be taken on record for justifiable reasons and not at the whims and fancies of the party. In the present case, no cogent reasons have been laid out by the plaintiff in the present applications for the belated filing of the additional documents. The plaintiff should thus, not be permitted to bring on record the said additional documents.
9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is a member of the defendant no. 1 and has voluntarily submitted itself to the guidelines, regulations and the ASCI Code. Hence, the plaintiff is bound by the said provisions including the impugned decision dated 15th December 2020 in the Complaint bearing FTCP No. 2012-FTC.23. It is submitted that ASCI Code provides for an efficacious remedy to the person aggrieved by way of a review. The ASCI Code also sets a fair and reasonable timeline for filing a view. It is submitted that the defendant no. 1, while communicating its decision, categorically intimated the interested parties that those who were not satisfied with the recommendations may submit the matter for review by way of an IRP within 10 business days. However, the plaintiff chose not to file a review against the decision and instead approached this Court.
10. It is submitted that the plaintiff filed multiple complaints before the defendant no. 1 and when it did not succeed in the multiple course of actions taken by it, it approached this Court in an attempt to seek an order which is contrary to the settled principles of law and hence, an abuse of the process of law.
11. It is further submitted that the documents that the plaintiff intends to bring on record pertain to a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant no. 1 before the Bombay High Court to challenge certain provisions of the ASCI Code which do not permit parties to seek relief before ASCI if they have any pending court proceedings against recommendations issued by ASCI. However, the same is not the subject matter in the instant suit.
12. The learned counsel for the defendant no. 1 also vehemently objected to the instant application and submitted that the additional documents that the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has sought to file by way of filing the instant suit have no relevance to the matter at hand. It is submitted that the aforesaid documents have been in possession of the applicant/plaintiff since the year 2021, however, it has failed to file them during this entire period and has also failed to explain the necessity to produce the documents before this Court at this juncture.
13. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has prayed for filing the additional documents for proper adjudication as they demonstrate the alleged irregularities in the CCC procedure followed by the defendant no. 1, however, these additional documents merely reiterate the allegations raised by the plaintiff before the Bombay High Court and do not serve, in any way, as conclusive proof of any of the allegations raised by the plaintiff in this suit. Therefore, the necessity for filing mere allegations remains unclear.
14. Hence, it is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the applications are liable to be dismissed.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
16. The instant applications have been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking to produce before this Court the following documents:a. Plaint, Interim Application, Reply, Reply Affidavit, Rejoinder Affidavit filed in Suit (L) No. 20564/2021 before the Bombay High Court. b. Email Correspondence dated 5th March 2021, 10th March 2021, 12th March 2021 and 26th March 2021 regarding denial of IRP by the defendant. c. Email dated 12th May 2021 entertaining FTC against the plaintiff. d. Email Correspondence dated 17th May 2021, 18th May 2021 and 19th May 2021 regarding denial of FTC by the defendant no. 1. e. Legal notice dated 28th May 2021 and its response dated 17th June
2021.
17. To produce the documents, which the plaintiff alleges are relevant and necessary documents for adjudication for the instant suit, the plaintiff has invoked Order VII Rule 14 (3) of the CPC, which reads as under:-
18. The provision allows a plaintiff to produce and have considered as evidence any document subject to the leave or permission from the Court. The Court while considering the question, whether in such a circumstance a document is to be added or annexed to the plaint and be considered as evidence, must deliberate upon the sufficient cause and reason for adding or annexing the same to the plaint. This deliberation may extend to examining whether the documents sought to be added/annexed are relevant to the matter and issue in question before the Court, whether the plaintiff had the knowledge of the existence of the documents at the time of filing the suit, if not whether at a belated stage the documents have any relevance, whether producing the documents would change the course or the subject in issue in the suit, etc.
19. For the instant suit and the applications filed therein, the relevant consideration, in light of the plea of the applicant/plaintiff and objections raised by the non-applicants/defendants the relevant questions for deliberation remain whether the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff are relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the instant suit at this stage and whether the same may be allowed to be produced at this stage of the suit.
20. To answer the question, reference is deemed necessary to the judgment passed in Om Prakash Gupta (Supra), wherein the following was observed and held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:-
21. A reference to the above makes it abundantly clear that a relief sought during the course of the proceedings shall satisfy the requirements of being brought before the Court in a timely manner and/or aiding the disposal of the matter while ensuring justice to the parties involved. What is before the Court and which must be decided by the Court is the subject matter, dispute or controversy in issue which has been the lis at the time of institution and commencement of the suit. It is also essential to evaluate whether taking cognizance or appreciating any document, plea etc. at a stage when the proceedings have already attained momentum would fundamentally change the issue before the Court and alter the relief sought or the course of proceedings. Therefore, any addition, omission, modification etc. in the pleadings, whether under Order VII Rule 14 or Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, shall be considered when it is aiding the effective and fair disposal of the matter.
22. Another crucial consideration is whether the addition, omission, or modification sought to be brought about has been raised before the Court timely and not rendered the plea infructuous. A party shall not have the liberty to sit on any substantial evidence and produce it before the Court only after significant progress has been made in the suit especially when its existence was well within the knowledge of the said party. The process of law cannot be misused or abused.
23. The plaintiff has sought to produce the documents pertaining to the suit filed by it before the Bombay High Court. The said documents are the claims and the objections raised with respect to the issues which are not before this Court. Considering that the question before this Court is essentially different, bringing on record documents pertaining to the suit before the Bombay High Court would not aid the adjudication or disposal of the matter before this Court.
24. The plaintiff has also failed to sufficiently show that the production and consideration of the said documents is necessary for the proper adjudication of the suit, nor the nexus between the issue in question and the documents sought to be produced has satisfactorily been established by the plaintiff.
25. Therefore, after considering the provision under the CPC, the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and the contents of the application as well as the documents sought to be produced by the plaintiff, this Court does not find any merit in the instant applications and is inclined to dismiss the same.
26. Accordingly, the instant applications stand dismissed for being devoid of merit. CS(OS) 87/2021 & I.A. 1950/2021 & I.A. 19332/2022 List on 19th April, 2023 before Joint Registrar. List on 19th September, 2023 before Court.