M/S. SWARAJ INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC APPLIANCES (P.) LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. SOCIETE DES PRODUITS NESTLE S.A. AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 13 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015(hereinafter referred to as the 'Commercial Courts Act') read with Order 43, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the application filed by the defendants No. 4 and 5, appellants herein, for filing additional documents has been rejected.

(2.) Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the suit has been delayed not on account of reasons attributed to the defendants No. 4 and 5 but because of the conduct of the respondents, i.e. plaintiffs in the suit. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that on 06.09.1995, the respondents(plaintiffs) had filed an IA.8139/1994 seeking impleadment of defendants No. 4 and 5(appellants herein). Counsel further submits that on 26.08.1996, plaintiffs filed an application seeking amendment of the plaint. Another application seeking amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiffs on 26.07.2004. The plaintiffs had also filed an additional affidavit in the year 2001 and an application seeking substitution of a witness was filed in the year 2015. It is strenuously urged before us that even after the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed, the plaintiffs sought further amendment of the plaint which was allowed.

(3.) The sum and substance of the arguments raised by Mr. Bhatia is that the learned Single Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the suit was instituted way back in the year 1993 and pending till date, but failed to consider that the delay was caused by the plaintiffs and not the defendants. The learned Single Judge has failed to balance the equities and take into consideration that it is the plaintiffs, who have been delaying the finality in the suit. Additionally, Mr. Bhatia contends that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents as the additional documents sought to be relied upon by the appellants are already on record and the appellants have also filed the additional evidence and thus, there would be no delay in the matter.