$~9
*
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS)
2045/2006
M/S KRBL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ajay Amitabh suman,
Advocate
versus
BECHER RAGHVJI PATEL &
ANR. ..... Defendant
Through: Mr. Bhaskar Tiwari, Advocate
CORAM:
DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE (DHJS), JOINT REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
O R D E R
% 10.03.2016
IA No. 13633/2015(under Order VII Rule 14 CPC by
plaintiff )
The reply has not been filed. Arguments heard.
List for orders today at 04:00 pm.
DR.
NEERA BHARIHOKE (DHJS)
JOINT
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
MARCH 10, 2016/hk
Present: None at 04:00 pm.
IA No. 13633/2015(under
Order VII Rule 14 CPC by plaintiff )
1.
By way of this order, I shall
dispose of the present application filed by the plaintiff to place additional
documents on record.
2.
The plaintiff wishes to file
copies of bill/s invoices for establishing
the user
of plaintiff’s trademark “INDIA GATE” since the year 1993-94.
The
reason for non-filing of these documents at the earlier dates/stage is
stated to be that the same were lying scattered in various places of old
record of the plaintiff company and the plaintiff took time to collect the
same. Plaintiff has prayed for allowing of these documents to be taken on
record as the same are relevant and necessary for proper adjudication of the
present suit.
3.
The defendant has not filed any
formal reply but has opposed the present application mainly on the ground of
delay being caused by the plaintiff and has drawn attention to the fact that it
has been more than seven years when the issues were framed in the present suit
and the plaintiff has not tendered evidence and has been seeking adjournments
on one or the other pretext. It has also been argued that on the same day when
the issues were framed, i.e. on 16.12.2008, the interim order was made absolute
and that the plaintiff is deliberately causing delay in view of enjoying the
interim stay in its favour. The defendant has prayed for dismissal of the
present application.
4.
The submissions made by the
learned counsel for defendant is in conformity with the proceedings of the
present matter. However, in view of the pleadings made in the plaint I find the
documents to be relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the present suit.
The documents proposed to be
filed are
very old and cannot be manufactured or created by the plaintiff. Even otherwise
the taking of the documents on record does not prove them. 5. The trial has yet
not commenced. The witnesses of the plaintiff are yet to step into the witness
box and the defendant will have the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
of the plaintiff in respect of these documents as well, in case the application
is allowed. The documents are relevant when viewed in the background of the
issues framed in the present suit. Though the interim order was made absolute
by mutual consent of the parties but that does not exempt the plaintiff from
pursuing his action diligently and expeditiously.
6. The defendant has suffered consequent delay. Therefore, in view of
observations made herein, the present application is allowed subject to cost of
Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.
7. The additional documents filed by the plaintiff are taken on record.
Let supplementary affidavit in respect of these documents be filed within three
working days from today with advance copy to opposite counsel. List on date
fixed for recording of plaintiff’s evidence.
DR.
NEERA BHARIHOKE (DHJS)
JOINT
REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)
MARCH 10, 2016/hk
