Introduction
This case study explores the judicial determination of Condor Footwear (India) Limited & Anr. v. Nexgen Footwear Private Limited & Ors., adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi. The dispute centers on the permissibility of plaintiffs filing additional documents alongside their replication in a commercial suit, and the procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended for such production. The case uniquely probes the intersection between specific Delhi High Court Rules and national procedural laws, especially when responsive pleadings produce new documentary evidence relevant to the controversy.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs, Condor Footwear (India) Limited and another, instituted a commercial suit against Nexgen Footwear Private Limited and others for alleged trademark infringement, specifically relating to use of the mark 'ENBLUE'. The plaintiffs initially filed the suit accompanied by an affidavit and several documents. In response, the defendants maintained in their written statement that at no point had they manufactured, marketed, or sold goods using the impugned trademark. They categorically disclaimed any present or future intent to use the mark, asserting that the lawsuit lacked any real cause of action.
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a replication to the written statement and, importantly, annexed additional documents, including invoices and export documents purportedly evidencing the defendants’ use of the trademark ‘ENBLUE’ through exports from India to Somalia. These documents were central to refuting the defendants’ categorical denials regarding use of the impugned trademark.
Procedural Background
The defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ filing of additional documents with the replication, asserting violations of procedural requirements under the Commercial Courts Act and the amended CPC. They contended that such documents could only be introduced with express leave of the Court and upon showing reasonable cause for late disclosure. The defendants argued that the documents, undisputedly in existence prior to filing the suit, should have been annexed to the original plaint under Order XI of CPC as amended for commercial suits and that Rule 1(4) and (5) imposed strict timelines and leave requirements. They characterized the plaintiffs’ actions as an abuse of process intended to plug gaps in the case and remedy insufficient evidence initially presented.
The impugned order of the Joint Registrar overruled the defendants’ objections, holding that since the documents were responsive and did not cause prejudice at that stage, they could be taken on record. The defendants then filed an appeal, challenging the order for contravention of procedural safeguards and seeking to strike the additional documents from the record.
Core Dispute
The principal dispute is whether the plaintiffs were entitled to file additional documents alongside their replication in response to averments made by the defendants in their written statement. The inquiry revolves around interpretation and application of Order XI of CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, and Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. The defendants maintain that all documents in the plaintiffs’ power, possession, or control, which existed at the time of filing, should have been disclosed with the plaint, and further disclosure at the replication stage is permissible only upon satisfying statutory cause and obtaining leave. The plaintiffs contend that the documents were responsive, served alongside replication as required by DHC Rules, and were in direct rebuttal to new contentions made by defendants.
Discussion on Judgments
The defendants relied on two principal decisions of the Delhi High Court:
CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2797. Here, the Court emphasized that in commercial suits, parties must strictly adhere to Order XI CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, which necessitates filing all documents with the plaint, and additional documents after the prescribed thirty-day period can only be filed on establishing reasonable cause with leave of Court.
Saregama India Ltd. v. ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2437. This decision reaffirmed strict construction of Order XI Rule 1(5), holding that the plaintiff cannot rely on original documents not disclosed in the plaint except upon showing reasonable cause and securing leave. Even in response to issues raised by the defendant, late filing is not permitted unless procedural requirements are met. The Court specifically cautioned against leniency in procedural compliance, noting that such practices risk undermining the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, relied upon Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, highlighting that replication must be served along with any documents in the plaintiff’s possession that they seek to file with replication. The Rule provides for endorsement of service and does not bar filing responsive documents at that stage when serving replication.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia carefully reviewed both the national procedural law and the specialized Delhi High Court Rules governing pleadings and document production in commercial suits. The Court noted that the defendants’ written statement expressly denied any use of the impugned trademark and asserted that the suit lacked cause of action—a factual assertion central to the controversy. In direct response, the plaintiffs’ replication not only contested these denials but furnished Bills of Lading and Commercial Invoices showing that the defendants did indeed export ENBLUE-branded goods overseas.
Justice Karia found that the documents annexed to replication were not belated filings or attempts at remedying prior deficiency in pleadings, but rather responsive documents relevant to refuting new averments in the defendants’ statement. The Judge highlighted Rule 5 of the DHC Rules, which specifically authorizes plaintiffs to serve documents with the replication when responding to contentions. Unlike documents which remained undisclosed despite being in possession, responsive documents plausibly accrue out of pleadings and are allowed at the stage of replication.
The Court acknowledged the principles outlined in CEC-CICI JV and Saregama India Ltd. but distinguished the facts, noting that the present case involved documents directly responsive to a categorical assertion introduced by the defendants. Permitting such documents ensures a full accounting of the dispute and does not prejudice the defendants, who are also given the opportunity to respond with further evidence. The Court thus found no infirmity with the Registrar’s order admitting the documents.
Final Decision
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order of the Joint Registrar. The plaintiffs’ additional documents annexed to the replication were lawfully taken on record, as they were responsive to contentions first introduced in the written statement. The defendants were given liberty to file any further responding documents within four weeks. The matter was directed to proceed before the Joint Registrar on the scheduled date.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment reaffirms that in commercial suits before the Delhi High Court, the procedural regime governing filing of additional documents must be interpreted in context with specialized court rules. Responsive documents annexed to replication are permissible when they directly rebut new factual assertions raised in the written statement, provided they are served as required. However, the regime of strict timelines and leave of Court for belated filings under Order XI CPC, as amended, continues to apply for all other documents not directly responsive in nature. The judgment balances robust compliance with procedural discipline and the need for thorough adjudication on merits, ensuring neither party is prejudiced.
Case Details
Case Title: Condor Footwear (India) Limited & Anr. Vs. Nexgen Footwear Private Limited & Ors.
Date of Order: August 22, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 605/2024 & I.A. 34116/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7140
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for Law Journal Publication
Responsive Documentary Evidence in Commercial Suits: An Analysis of Condor Footwear v. Nexgen Footwear
Document Filing Regime in Delhi Commercial Courts: Lessons from ENBLUE Trademark Dispute
Replication and Responsive Documents: Judicial Approach in Modern Commercial Litigation
Balancing Procedural Rigour and Fair Adjudication: Delhi High Court’s Ruling in Trademark Infringement Cases
Harmonizing Court Rules with CPC in Commercial Litigation: Recent Directions from Condor Footwear Judgment
