Summary
The Court partly allowed production of additional documents in a commercial trademark suit. Commercial Order XI Rule 1, rather than ordinary Order VII Rule 14(3), governed disclosure. The invoices assertedly discovered later and outside the plaintiff’s possession at filing were permitted; their genuineness was not to be finally assessed on the leave request. Other documents already held were refused because their volume and the claimed urgency did not reasonably explain omission in this refiled suit. The permission was expressly not to affect the interim-injunction outcome.
Issues
- Which disclosure provision governed additional documents in a commercial suit.
- Whether later-discovered invoices and documents already held warranted different treatment.
Provisions considered
- Section 16, Commercial Courts Act, 2015The specially amended CPC disclosure regime governed commercial suits and prevailed over inconsistent ordinary procedural provisions. (¶ 7.2)
- Order XI Rule 1(1)–(5) and (12), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended for commercial disputesDocuments in the plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody required disclosure; late reliance on held documents required reasonable cause and leave. Later discovery outside that control stood on a different footing. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10)
Held
- The commercial disclosure regime under Order XI Rule 1 applied, so ordinary Order VII Rule 14(3) was not the correct route. The Court nevertheless examined the request under the governing provision because the courts below had already done so; the wrong citation did not alone decide the application. (¶ 7.2)
- The plaintiff must disclose documents within its power, possession, control or custody and make the prescribed declaration. Urgent-filing leave and later reliance on omitted held documents required compliance with the special rule, including reasonable cause. That omission requirement did not operate in the same manner for documents genuinely found later and not held at filing. (¶¶ 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6)
- The application asserted that the invoices were later obtained from another source and had not been in the plaintiff’s possession. It was filed within thirty days, and the alleged afterthought timing was not supported. Those invoices should have been permitted; their genuineness belonged to evidentiary or relevant interim assessment, not final determination on the leave application. (¶¶ 7.1, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
- The remaining documents were admittedly already held. Volume and claimed urgency supplied no reasonable cause given the earlier suit, its withdrawal and the interval before refiling. Their refusal was affirmed. Only the invoice refusal was set aside, with permission expressly not to affect the interim-injunction application’s outcome; no costs were ordered. (¶¶ 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10)
Result
Appeal partly allowed without costs: specified invoices permitted as additional documents; refusal of other documents affirmed. Permission not to affect the interim-injunction outcome.