Sufficient Cause Required for filing Witness List at later stage
Introduction
In a ruling that highlights the importance of timely and diligent conduct of litigation, the Delhi High Court on 28 February 2026 dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the District Judge (Commercial Court) that refused permission to examine two additional witnesses in a long-pending trademark infringement suit concerning the mark “Clariwash” for skin care products.
Court held that the trial court was justified in rejecting the plaintiff’s repeated requests to add more witnesses at a late stage, especially when the suit was already six years old and the plaintiff’s evidence stage had been dragging on. The court emphasized that while parties have some flexibility to produce their own witnesses without court summons, they must still provide sufficient and convincing reasons for not including those witnesses in the initial list. Mere claims of health issues or work commitments, without supporting documents, were not enough to justify further delay. This decision serves as a reminder to litigants that courts expect efficiency in commercial disputes and will not readily allow repeated changes that prolong trials without good cause.
Factual Background
Innovative Derma Care, the petitioner, is engaged in marketing and selling skin care products under the trademark “Clariwash”. In July 2018, it discovered that Vardhaman Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and another were allegedly manufacturing and selling face wash products under the same mark. This led the petitioner to file a commercial suit (CS(COMM) No. 403/2019) before the District Judge (Commercial), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, seeking relief for trademark infringement and passing off.
The plaintiff initially filed a list of witnesses proposing only its sole proprietor, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Taneja, as PW-1. A Local Commissioner was appointed for recording evidence. Later, the plaintiff successfully sought permission to add three more witnesses (PW-2 to PW-4). However, on 22 April 2025, it filed another application under Order XVI Rule 1 CPC seeking to add two further witnesses — Mr. Amit Chopra (proprietor of Mediwings) as PW-5 and Mr. Gulshan Kumar (proprietor of GM Medicine Centre) as PW-6. The plaintiff claimed Mr. Amit Chopra could not be included earlier due to deteriorating health and Mr. Gulshan Kumar due to frequent travel and work commitments. An application for early hearing of this request was filed, but the trial court dismissed the application on 21 November 2025, citing the age of the suit, previous additions of witnesses, and lack of sufficient justification.Aggrieved, the plaintiff approached the High Court under Article 227 challenging the trial court’s refusal.
Procedural Background
The commercial suit was instituted in 2019. After initial proceedings, including mediation, issues were framed on 4 February 2025. The plaintiff filed its initial witness list on 10 February 2025 naming only one witness. A Local Commissioner was appointed on 11 February 2025 for evidence recording.
In March 2025, the plaintiff moved an application to add three additional witnesses, which the trial court allowed after hearing the parties. Evidence recording continued. On 22 April 2025, the plaintiff filed the subject application to add two more witnesses. It also sought early hearing of the application. On 21 November 2025, the trial court heard the early hearing request and dismissed the underlying application, observing that the suit was one of the oldest pending matters, the plaintiff had already added witnesses once, and no cogent reasons were shown for the further delay in naming the new witnesses. The plaintiff then filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the Delhi High Court.
The High Court heard arguments from both sides. Respondent No. 2 (represented by Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and team) opposed the petition, arguing that the plaintiff was indulging in dilatory tactics and that the names could have been included earlier. The matter was decided on 28 February 2026.
Reasoning
The High Court carefully examined the provisions of Order XVI Rule 1 and Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Rule 1 requires parties to file a list of witnesses within the prescribed time after issues are settled. Rule 1A allows a party to produce its own witnesses without court summons, but this is subject to the court’s power under Rule 1(3) to permit additional witnesses only for sufficient cause.
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan to explain the balance between flexibility and discipline in examining witnesses. While parties can bring their own witnesses without summons, the court still has discretion to refuse if names were not included earlier without good reason. The High Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting claims of health issues or unavailability. Such vague explanations were insufficient, especially in a six-year-old suit where the plaintiff had already been granted one opportunity to add three witnesses.
The trial court’s observation that the plaintiff was responsible for delaying its own evidence was found reasonable. Repeated applications to expand the witness list without strong justification suggested an attempt to prolong proceedings rather than a genuine need. No prejudice to the defendant was even required to be shown when the plaintiff could not demonstrate sufficient cause for the omission.
The High Court concluded that the trial court had applied its mind properly and exercised discretion in a balanced manner, considering the overall delay in the matter. Interference under Article 227 was not warranted as there was no jurisdictional error or grave miscarriage of justice.
Key Judgments Discussed with Citations and Context
The court primarily discussed Mange Ram v. Brij Mohan, (1983) 4 SCC 36. In this Supreme Court case, the question was whether a party could be prevented from examining witnesses it produces on its own (without court summons) merely because their names were not in the initial list filed under Order XVI Rule 1. The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 1A gives parties the liberty to produce their own witnesses without court assistance, but this is subject to the court’s power under Rule 1(3) to allow additional witnesses only upon showing sufficient cause for omission from the list. The provision aims to prevent abuse while ensuring relevant evidence is not shut out on mere technicalities. However, the court must still be satisfied that there is genuine reason for the late inclusion.
The High Court applied this principle to the facts, holding that the petitioner failed to show “sufficient cause” through concrete evidence (such as medical records). It distinguished the situation from cases where witnesses were genuinely unavailable or newly discovered, noting the repeated nature of the requests and the advanced stage of the suit.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition under Article 227. It found no infirmity in the trial court’s order dated 21 November 2025 refusing permission to add two additional witnesses. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
In a lawsuit, once issues are framed, parties must file a list of witnesses they want to examine. While you can bring your own witnesses without asking the court for summons (under Order XVI Rule 1A), if you want to add names later that were not in your original list, you must show a strong and genuine reason (“sufficient cause”). Vague explanations like “health issues” or “busy with work” are not enough unless supported by proper proof, such as medical documents.
Courts will look at the overall progress of the case. If the suit is already old and the party has already been given chances to add witnesses, further requests are likely to be rejected to prevent unnecessary delays. The goal is to ensure trials move forward efficiently, especially in commercial disputes where time is important for businesses.
Trial courts have reasonable discretion in such matters, and higher courts will not interfere under Article 227 unless there is a clear legal error or serious injustice. Parties must plan their evidence carefully from the beginning rather than treating witness lists as changeable at will.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested Titles for the Article:
- Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition to Add More Witnesses in Trademark Suit: Delay Not Tolerated
- No Repeated Additions of Witnesses: High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Refusal in “Clariwash” Case
- Sufficient Cause Required for Late Witness List: Key Ruling Under Order XVI CPC
- Article 227 Petition Fails: Commercial Court’s Control Over Evidence Recording Upheld
No comments:
Post a Comment