Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
This case involves a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, challenging the trial court's decision to reject additional documents at a later stage of the trial. The Jharkhand High Court looked closely at how Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) works in commercial cases, weighing the need for quick decisions against the main goal of ensuring fair justice.
Factual Background
Rita Verma runs a jewellery shop called Chhaganlal Madanlal & Sons at Dhanna Singh Building, New Purulia Road, Mango, Jamshedpur in East Singhbhum district. The other side, Chetan Adesera, Piyush Adesera, Manish Adesera, and Smt. Pasam Adesera, are partners in a firm named Chhaganlal Dayaljee with a showroom at Diagonal Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, also in East Singhbhum. Both businesses deal in jewellery and use names starting with Chhaganlal, which sparked the conflict over trademarks, logos, and how the shops look.
Procedural Detail
The plaintiffs started Original Suit No. 04 of 2017 in the Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They asked for a permanent injunction to stop the defendant from using marks like CHHAGANLAL or CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE or anything too similar, to prevent passing off their business as the plaintiffs', to block use of similar logos or artistic works, for delivery up and destruction of infringing items like wrappers and letterheads, for damages enquiry, receiver appointment, injunction, costs, and other reliefs.
The court framed issues, plaintiffs finished their evidence on 18.09.2024, and then it was the defendant's turn; she had examined seven witnesses by then. During the suit, the defendant applied under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to add documents like certified copy of trademark application No.773292 dated 24.10.1997 for CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS by Shashikant Chhaganlal under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958; certificate of registration Trade Mark No.1611685 dated 15.10.2007 for Shashikant Chhaganlal Adesara and others; newspaper Uditvani dated 01.04.2016 and 06.04.2016; application No.3305681 dated 09.07.2016 and No.3344290 dated 24.08.2016 for Chetan Adesara's logo CHD-1918; application No.4214895 dated 24.06.2019 for CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE THE ORIGINAL; photos of plaintiffs' shop fronts; and 11 cash memos from plaintiffs' shop.
She said certified copies came later, newspapers were untraceable before, and these were key for fair decision, or she would face big loss. Plaintiffs replied that unpleaded documents should not go on record. The Commercial Court rejected it on 12.09.2025, noting plaintiffs' evidence closed 18.09.2024, defendant got multiple chances with costs before, last on 16.05.2025 and another on 18.08.2025 with Rs.2000 cost, so fifth application not allowed.
Defendant filed C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025 under Article 227 seeking to quash that order and allow the documents list dated 04.09.2025. Heard by Division Bench, reserved 18.11.2025, pronounced 20.11.2025.
Core Dispute
The main fight was whether the trial court rightly turned down the defendant's fifth application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to add relevant documents after written statement and plaintiffs' evidence, in a commercial suit needing quick end, or if courts must allow them for real justice despite delays.
Defendant said trial court too strict on procedure. Plaintiffs said commercial suits must finish fast, no endless evidence from defendant.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The High Court agreed commercial suits need quick disposal as per Supreme Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 234, and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585. But speed does not mean ignoring law; here suit from 2017, plaintiffs closed evidence 18.09.2024, defendant leading evidence with seven witnesses, and trial court found no irrelevance in documents, just counted applications.
Court said procedure rules help justice, not block it; they are handmaid of justice, not to cause miscarriage. No party denied chance in justice process unless statute forces it strictly; procedural law servant, aid to justice, lubricant not resistant. Quote: mortality of justice at hands of law troubles judge's conscience. All procedure based on advancing justice, not defeating it. Procedural hurdles no bar if no serious prejudice; litigation journey to truth, court must find it. Cited Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (Dead) by Lrs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs & Anr, (2003) 3 SCC 272; Kailash v. Nanhku & Ors, (2005) 4 SCC 480 (Constitution Bench); Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774; State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, (1976) 1 SCC 719.
On Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC, quoted Supreme Court in Sugandhi v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706: Rule 1-A(1) says defendant list and produce documents with written statement, state if not in possession; (3) such document not received in evidence without court leave; exceptions for cross-exam or memory refresh. Sub-rule (3) gives second chance with leave on good cause, exercised judiciously, no fixed formula. Procedure handmaid, no hurdles if no prejudice, lenient view for relevant documents needed for just decision; there defendants said documents missing then traced, court should allow.
Also Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr, Civil Appeal No.4096 of 2022: trial and high court erred not allowing documents despite delay; relevance for trial court to check, denial of documents denies justice; procedure handmaid, impose costs not refuse.
Trial court hyper-technical, erred rejecting when defendant still giving evidence, no irrelevance finding.
Decision
Petition allowed, order 12.09.2025 set aside, documents allowed subject to Rs.25,000 cost to Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority. Trial court decide suit by 31.03.2026, parties appear 28.11.2025, pending applications disposed.
Concluding Note
Judgment stresses procedure must serve justice, not trip it; in commercial suits Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) leave for late documents on good cause with costs if relevant, no serious prejudice. Trial courts avoid hyper-technical rejection, balance speed with fair trial to find truth.
Case Title: Rita Verma Vs. Chetan Adesera & Ors.
Order date: 20/11/2025
Case Number: C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:JHHC:34689-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J. and Rajesh Shankar, J.
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 5 Suitable titles:
-
Procedural Fairness Over Technicality: Jharkhand HC on Order VIII Rule 1-A in Trademark Suits
-
Handmaids of Justice: Allowing Late Documents in Commercial Litigation
-
Balancing Expediency and Equity: Analysis of Rita Verma v. Chetan Adesera
-
From Rigidity to Relevance: Supreme Court Precedents on CPC in High Court Ruling
-
Truth in Trial: Late Evidence under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC Revisited
Jharkhand High Court Permits Late Documents in Trademark Row: Rita Verma v. Chetan Adesera & Ors (C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025, Order dated 20.11.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:34689-DB, Per Hon’ble Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
Division Bench set aside Commercial Court's rejection of defendant's fifth application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC to file trademark applications, registrations, newspapers, photos in 2017 infringement suit by Chhaganlal Dayaljee partners against Rita Verma's similar jewellers in Jamshedpur. Citing Sugandhi v. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 and Levaku Pedda Reddamma (CA 4096/2022), court held procedure aids justice, allow relevant late files with costs (Rs.25,000), direct suit end by 31.03.2026 despite delays post-2017 filing.
Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
======
Jharkhand High Court Allows Late Filing of Documents in Trademark Dispute: Rita Verma v. Chetan Adesera (C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025, Order dated 20.11.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:34689-DB, authored by Hon’ble Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan with Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Shankar, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)
In a key ruling on procedural fairness in commercial litigation, the Jharkhand High Court set aside a trial court order rejecting the defendant's application to introduce additional trademark documents under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC in a long-pending trademark infringement suit. The underlying Original Suit No. 04 of 2017, filed by partners of "Chhaganlal Dayaljee" jewellers against Rita Verma, proprietor of "Chhaganlal Madanlal & Sons", alleges infringement and passing off of the "CHHAGANLAL" mark and logo in Jamshedpur's jewellery market.
The Commercial Court at Jamshedpur had dismissed the defendant's fifth bid on 12.09.2025 to file items like old trademark applications (e.g., No. 773292 of 1997), registrations (e.g., No. 1611685 of 2007), newspaper clippings from Uditvani, shop photos, and cash memos, citing repeated delays post-plaintiffs' evidence closure in September 2024. The High Court, invoking Supreme Court precedents like Sugandhi v. Rajkumar (2020) 10 SCC 706 and Levaku Pedda Reddamma (Civil Appeal No. 4096/2022), held that procedural rules are "handmaids of justice" and trial courts must allow relevant late documents with costs if no serious prejudice occurs, rather than adopt a "hyper-technical view".
Permitting the documents subject to Rs. 25,000 costs to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, the Division Bench directed the trial court to expedite the 2017 suit's disposal by 31 March 2026, emphasizing balanced speedy justice in commercial matters.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
