SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN versus VINAY KUMAR G.B.

Citation: [2021] 7 S.C.R. 731 · Decided: 15-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
731
SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN
v.
VINAY KUMAR G.B.
(Civil Appeal No. 5620 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –Or.VII, r.14(3) and Or. XI,
R.1 (as amended by the amendment in the Commercial Courts Act) –
Filing of additional documents –The appellant-original plaintiff filed
the commercial suit claiming a decree of permanent injunction
against the defendant from using the Trade Mark of appellant –
Appellant filed an application u/Or.VII, r.14(3) and sought to file
additional documents – The said application was dismissed by the
Commercial Court –The High Court confirmed the order by the
Commercial Courts – On appeal, held: Or. XI, R.1 as amended by
the amendment in the Commercial Courts Act, with respect to the
suits before the commercial division and the Commercial Court, the
provisions of Or.VII, R.14 (3) were not applicable – Therefore, as
such the plaintiff applied the wrong provision seeking leave of the
court to place on record the additional documents – Now, before
the Supreme Court, the application submitted by the appellant was
considered submitted u/Or. XI R.1(4) of the CPC as both the
Commercial Court and the High Court had considered and applied
Or.XI, R.1 –In the said application for additional documents, it was
specifically mentioned that so far as the invoices are concerned,
the same were not in its possession at the time of the filing of the
plaint and so far as the other documents are concerned they were
not filed due to they being voluminous – Therefore, so far as the
invoices sought to be relied on/produced as additional documents
ought to have been permitted – Insofar as, the non-filing of the
additional documents other than the invoices on the ground of they
being voluminous cannot be said to be a reasonable cause for non-
disclosure/filing along with plaint – Both the courts below rightly
not permitted the plaintiff to rely upon the documents, other than
the invoices as additional documents in exercise of the powers
u/Or. XI R.1 (4) r/w. Or. XI R. 1 (5).
[2021] 7 S.C.R. 731
731
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
732
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It emerges from the record that the first suit
was filed by the plaintiff in the month of October, 2018, bearing
TM No.236 of 2018, restraining the defendant from infringing
and passing-off plaintiff’s Trade Marks. That an ex-parte interim
injunction was passed in favour of the plaintiff by order dated
29.10.2018. It appears having realized and found that the earlier
suit was not in consonance with the provisions of the Commercial
Courts Act, the plaintiff withdrew the said suit being TM No.236
of 2018 on 27.07.2019 with liberty to file a fresh suit as per the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Therefore, the second suit wasfiled
on 31.08.2019 and within a period of thirty days from filing of the
second suit the appellant herein – original plaintiff preferred the
present application seeking leave of the court to file additional
documents. In the application, it was specifically mentioned that
so far as the invoices are concerned, the same were not in its
possession at the time of the filing of the plaint and so far as the
other documents are concerned they were not filed due to they
being voluminous. Therefore, so far as the invoices sought to
be relied on/produced as additional documents ought to have
been permitted to be relied on/produced as it was specifically
asserted that they were not in his possession at the time of filing
of the plaint/suit.[Para 8.1][747-A-E]
2. Now, so far as the other documents sought to be relied
on/produced as additional documents other than the invoices are
concerned the same stands on different footing. It is not disputed
and in fact it was specifically admitted and so stated in the
application that those additional documents other than the invoices
were in their possession but not produced being voluminous and
that the suit was filed urgently. However, it is to be noted that
when the second suit was filed, it cannot be said to be urgent
filing of the suit for injunction, as the first suit was filed in the
month of October, 2018 and there was an exparte ad interim
injunction vide order dated 29.10.2018 and thereafter plaintiff
withdrew the said first suit on 27.07.2019 with liberty to file a
fresh suit as per the Commercial Courts Act and the second suit
came to be filed on 31.08.2019 after period of one month of the
wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.