GLAVERBEL S A Vs. DAVE ROSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 240/2008 in C.C. No. /2008 (to be numbered) (by plaintiff for condonation of delay in filing the written statement to the counter claim of the defendants/counter claimants) 1. Pursuant to the order dated 25.4.2008, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit dated 27.5.2008 in support of the present application by which condonation of delay is sought for delayed filing of the written statement to the counter claim of the defendant. The defendant has also filed its response thereto.

(2.) It is stated in the said affidavit that while the plaintiff may have been aware of the cited references and various documents relied upon by the defendants in their written statement-cum-counter claim, however, the same does not constitute relevant prior art documents. It is further stated in the affidavit that the said documents were never considered or examined as prior art documents by the plaintiff as on the date of institution of the suit and that only when the said documents were relied upon by the defendants, the plaintiff got an opportunity to scrutinize and analyse them, so as to deal with the contentions raised by the defendants.

(3.) It is stated by the counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the aforesaid position, the written statement to the counter claim came to be filed only on 2.1.2008, i.e. after a period of almost six months from 10.7.2007, the date when the plaintiff was directed to file the written statement to the counter claim of the defendants. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the clients of the plaintiff are based in Belgium. The documents which were to be examined and analyzed needed a lot of communication, interactions and discussions amongst the plaintiff and its attorneys located in different countries. It is thus stated that the delay in filing the written statement on the part of the plaintiff is bonafide and the plaintiff would not stand to gain by seeking to drag its own suit as its interim application is still under consideration and the plaintiff does not enjoy any ex-parte stay thereon till date.