Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
XERO DEGREES. .....Plaintiff
Advocates who appeared in this case For the Plaintiff : Mr. Abhay Mahajan, Mr. Shivam Malhotra, Mr. Ashit Kapoor and Mr. Ishan Dhamija, Advocates.
For the Defendants : Mr. Sahib Kochhan, Mr. Sai Manik Sud and
Mr. Aryan Mishra, Advocates.
INTRODUCTION:
1. This Application was filed by the Plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking leave to place on record the following additional documents: a. Text messages of Partner of the Plaintiff Firm with Defendant NO. 2; and; b. WhatsApp communication between Partners of the Plaintiff Firm and Defendant No. 2.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
2. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that by way of the present Application, the Plaintiff seeks to place on record complete WhatsApp communication and other messages exchanged between one of the Partners of the Plaintiff Firm and Defendant No. 2. It is further submitted that the Defendants have selectively filed incomplete WhatsApp chats with mala fide intent to create a false impression that the Plaintiff had consented to the incorporation of Defendant No. 3 and the filing of the Trade Mark Applications, thereby misleading the Court.
3. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that in order to establish the gross misrepresentation by the Defendants, the Plaintiff traced and retrieved the complete conversation from the relevant mobile device, which was hard to retrieve and was used by the partner of the Plaintiff firm back in the year 2020-21. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record could not be filed at the time of filing the Replication as the said mobile device was untraceable, however, the Plaintiff filed the said documents as soon as the relevant communications were retrieved.
4. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the present Suit is at a preliminary stage and Issues are yet to be framed, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the Defendants if the said documents are placed on record. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff in its Admission / Denial of documents, had denied the selective extracts of the WhatsApp communications produced by the Defendants stating that they are “denied as only selective portions are printed”.
5. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC empowers the Court to permit the parties to file additional documents at any stage, provided they are necessary for the fair and just adjudication of the case to prevent injustice where material documents could not be filed previously due to reasons beyond the control of a party. It is further submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record are merely supplementary to the case set up by the Plaintiff and do not modify the same in any manner.
6. In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the present Application may be allowed and the additional documents be taken on record as the same are vital for the just and fair adjudication of the present Suit.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:
7. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff neither filed the documents sought to be placed on record at the time of filing the Plaint nor within the extended period of thirty days as stipulated under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff in its Plaint as well as the Replication dated 08.04.2024 made a declaration that all the documents in their power, possession, control or custody have been disclosed, however, the present Application seeks to bring on record the documents that have been in the Plaintiff’s possession since the year 2020 / 2021.
8. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the documents sought to be placed on record allegedly contain the communications between Defendant No. 2 and the partner of the Plaintiff firm, which have not been referred to in the pleadings and the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to set up a new case at this belated stage. It is further submitted that as the documents sought to be placed on record were in Plaintiff’s power, possession, control and custody since the very inception of the Suit, they do not fall within the scope of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC. It is also submitted that even if the case of the Plaintiff falls within the scope of Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii), the documents sought to be placed on record ought to have been filed by the Plaintiff along with their Replication dated 08.04.2024.
9. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff has invoked Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC in the present Application, which requires the standard of ‘reasonable cause’ for non-disclosure of the documents along with the Plaint to be met. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff has failed to provide any reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the additional documents to be placed on record in the present Application as the reason provided in the Application is merely an eyewash. It is also submitted that the Plaintiff claimed that the mobile device of one of the partners of the Plaintiff firm containing the relevant communications was not available with the said partner, however, the data that is digitally stored and electronically available can easily be retrieved.
10. The learned Counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Plaintiff had multiple opportunities to file the additional documents sought to be placed on record as it could have filed the said documents along with the Plaint, the Replication or upon the failure of the Mediation proceedings. A chronology of the relevant dates in the present proceedings along with the relevant events is as under: Date Particulars December 2023 / January 2024 The captioned Suit for infringement was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. 22.02.2024 Written Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 & 2 was filed along with a list of documents including certain communication (WhatsApp chats) between the Defendant No. 2 and the Partners of the Plaintiff. 08.04.2024 Replication was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff wherein there is no disclosure of any existing communications / further documents to be placed on record. The Plaintiff had merely denied the averments made in the Written Statement. August 2024 Vide order dated 19.01.2024, the Parties were referred to the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. However, the same was to no avail as the Parties were unable to amicably resolve the disputes and settle the matter. 17.10.2024 Present application was filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) on behalf of the Plaintiff.
11. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that the present Application may be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
12. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the material placed on record.
13. The present Application has been filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, which reads as under:
14. A perusal of Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC would show that the Plaintiff shall seek the Court’s leave to file an addition document on record, which can only be granted if the Plaintiff can establish “reasonable cause” for non-disclosure of the said document along with the Plaint.
15. In Hassad Food Co. Q.S.C. v. Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10647, this Court held that the phrase “reasonable cause”, as used in Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, requires lower degree of proof when compared to “good cause” or “sufficient cause”. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:
16. This Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Varshney v. Longlast Power Products Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3775, held that while the essence of Order XI of the CPC is to introduce a sense of urgency in commercial proceedings, it should not be read in a manner that enables technical considerations to trample substantive justice. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below: “34..….Notwithstanding this, it is important to acknowledge that the suit is still at a nascent stage, with issues yet to be framed and the interim injunction application of the Petitioner still pending adjudication. The adage that ‘procedure is the handmaid of justice’ must guide our deliberations. While the essence of Order XI of CPC is to instil a sense of urgency in commercial proceedings, it should not be interpreted in a manner that hampers the pursuit of justice or enables one party to clinch victory on mere technical grounds before the matter has been thoroughly scrutinized at trial. Indeed, as pointed out by the Petitioner, Co-ordinate benches of this Court have allowed for additional documents to be filed in matters where issues had not been framed. That said, each case has to turn on its own facts and circumstance, which, as discussed above are compelling enough for exercise of the Court's discretion, as provided in law.”
17. In the present case, the additional documents sought to be placed on record by the Plaintiff include complete WhatsApp chats and text messages between the partner(s) of the Plaintiff firm and Defendant No.2 in response to the alleged incomplete WhatsApp chats filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 along with the Written Statement, which was denied by the Plaintiff in its Affidavit of Admission / Denial of Documents filed along with the Replication, for the reason that only selective incomplete communication was filed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2.
18. It is apparent that the said additional documents sought to be placed on record by the Plaintiff are in response to the case set up by the Defendants, and therefore, the same is in accordance with Order XI Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) of the CPC.
19. The standard of “reasonable cause” as provided for under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, is met in the present case as firstly, the said documents are only being filed in response to the case set up by the Defendants; secondly, the Plaintiff took time to retrieve communication dating back to 2020-21; and lastly, the said documents are relevant for the just and proper adjudication of the present Suit to appreciate the completeness of documents produced by the Defendants.
20. Accordingly, no prejudice will be caused to the Defendants by permitting the Plaintiff to place the additional documents on record, subject to payment of costs, especially since the present Suit is at a nascent stage and the Issues are yet to be framed.
21. Accordingly, the present Application is allowed and the additional documents sought to be placed on record as filed along with the present Application are directed to be taken on record, subject to payment of costs of ₹25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand Only) to the Defendants.
22. The Application stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction. CS(COMM) 12/2024 & I.A. 280/2024
23. List on 07.01.2026.
TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 ap/st