Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Saregama India Ltd.

Case Title: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Saregama India Ltd.

Date of Order: 28th February, 2025

Case Number: CS(COMM) 1674/2016

Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:1316

Court Name: Delhi High Court

Hon'ble Judge: Justice Amit Bansal

Brief Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff, Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, Saregama India Ltd., from infringing its copyright in sound recordings incorporated in 29 cinematograph films. The plaintiff attempted to introduce additional documents and an additional affidavit of evidence after eight years of litigation, seeking to lead secondary evidence for proving its ownership of the disputed works.

Issues Before the Court:

Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC to place additional documents on record at such a belated stage. Whether the plaintiff had made out a case for leading secondary evidence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Whether the plaintiff’s delay in filing these documents prejudiced the defendant's case.

Court’s Reasoning:

The plaintiff was aware since 2017 that it only had copies of the documents, not the originals. The need to lead secondary evidence arose in March 2019, when key documents were de-exhibited. Despite this, the plaintiff waited until November 2024 to send letters requesting the original documents and then filed an application to introduce them. The court found this delay inexcusable and held that the plaintiff had failed to exercise due diligence.

Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, a party seeking to lead secondary evidence must prove why the originals are unavailable. The plaintiff did not establish that the originals were lost or destroyed. The court referred to Jai Prakash Aggarwal v. State & Ors., where it was held that secondary evidence cannot be permitted unless a proper foundation is laid.

The plaintiff's application was seen as an attempt to improve its case by introducing new evidence at the last moment. The delay had already prolonged the trial since 2016, which was against the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates expeditious disposal. The court cited Nitin Gupta v. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Ltd., emphasizing the need to enforce strict timelines in commercial suits.

Decision:

The application was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant within two weeks. The court refused to allow the plaintiff to place additional documents on record or introduce an additional affidavit of evidence. 

Law Point Settled:

Strict compliance with Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC in commercial suits—parties cannot introduce additional documents at a belated stage without valid justification. Secondary evidence under Sections 65 and 66 of the Indian Evidence Act requires a clear foundation proving the loss or unavailability of the originals. Delays in commercial litigation that are caused by a party's lack of diligence will not be condoned, as they violate the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to ensure speedy disposal of cases.