AGVA HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AGFA-GEVAERT NV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred the present appeal against the impugned order dtd. 23/3/2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Central District in CS (COMM) No. 858/2022, whereby, the learned District Judge allowed the respondents' application under Order XI Rule 1( 5) wrongly mentioned as under Order XI Rule 5 CPC r/w Sec. 151 CPC) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ["CPC"] to take additional documents on record.

(2.) The respondents herein, original plaintiffs, filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain infringement, passing off, dilution and unfair trade competition, as well as, for damages and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendants. Along with the suit, the respondents filed an application under Order XI Rule 1 (4) CPC, seeking 30 days' time to file old invoices and other documents. Subsequently, after filing of the replies by the appellants, respondents filed documents along with their rejoinders to the respondents' application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC. These were, however, struck off by the learned District Judge, inasmuch as, the same were filed without leave of the court and without even moving any appropriate application. Thereafter, respondents filed an application under Order XI Rule 5 CPC seeking to file additional documents. The same was allowed vide impugned order dtd. 23/3/2023. It is this order which is being challenged in the present appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the order, arguing that the additional documents which the respondents sought to file are dated back to the time much prior to the filing of the suit and were well within the power, possession, control and custody of the appellants, but the same were consciously and deliberately not filed. It is also submitted that in the statement of truth filed by the respondents, they have categorically stated on oath that they do not have any other document(s) in their power, possession, control or custody except as mentioned in the list of reliance filed with the suit. In fact, the said documents dated back to time much prior to the filing of the suit, but it has not been explained how the said documents were not in power and possession of the respondents at the time of filing of the suit. It is thus argued that the respondents have failed to establish 'reasonable cause' for non-disclosure of additional documents.