REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS VS KAPOOR SAWS MANUFACTURING CO & ORS

$~1&2

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+C.R.P. No.146/2015 & CM No.21927/2015 (for stay)

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS                                               ..... Petitioner

Through:       Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and Ms.

Anumita Chandra, Adv.

versus

KAPOOR SAWS MANUFACTURING CO & ORS ..... Respondents

Through:       Mr. Amit Jain, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh

Suman, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor and Mr.

Kapil Kumar, Advs. for R-3&4.

AND

+                   C.R.P. No.29/2017 & CM No.5066/2017 (for stay)

REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

	THR DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS			..... Petitioner
	Through:Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and Ms.
		Anumita Chandra, Adv.
	versus
	SONIK INDUSTRIES & ORS			..... Respondents
	Through:Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
		Suman, Mr. Saurabh Kapoor and Mr.
		Kapil Kumar, Advs. for R-1.
		Mr. S.M. Gupta, Adv. for R-2&3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
		O R D E R
%	31.07.2017

1.                 Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 was instituted impugning the order, of the Additional District Judge in a suit inter se respondents therein, directing issuance of Proclamation under Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai for the reason of the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai having failed to respond

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 1 of 8

to the notice to show cause, earlier issued, for non-production of summoned record.

2.                 Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 was entertained and vide ex parte

order dated 1^st October, 2015 which continues to be in force, further proceedings against the Registrar of Trade Marks before the Trial Court stayed.

3.                 It is however today informed that Proclamation to the Registrar of Trade Marks, in the suit qua which Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 has been filed, was ordered to be issued for the reason of the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks inspite of service of summons having not produced the records of the Office of the Registrar of Trade Marks summoned in the suit. It is also informed that the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks has since then furnished to the respondent which had summoned the Registrar of Trade Marks, certified copies of the documents which were sought to be summoned and in default of producing which the Proclamation was issued.

4.                 The counsels were heard on 14^th July, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks drew attention to Sections 136, 137 and

138  of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which provide as under:-

“136. Registered user to be impleaded in certain proceedings.—(1) In every proceeding under chapter VII or under section 91, every registered user of a trade mark using by way of permitted use, who is not himself an applicant in respect of any proceeding under that Chapter or section, shall be made a party to the proceeding.

(2)     Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a registered user so made a party to the proceeding shall not be liable for any costs unless he enters an appearance and takes part in the proceeding.

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 2 of 8

137.   Evidence of entries in register, etc., and things done by the Registrar.—(1) A copy of any entry in the register or of any document referred to in sub-section (1) of section 148 purporting to be 47 certified by the Registrar and sealed with the seal of the Trade Marks Registry shall be admitted in evidence in all courts and in all proceedings without further proof or production of the original.

(2) A certificate purporting to be under the hand of the Registrar as to any entry, matter or thing that he is authorised by this Act or the rules to make or do shall be prima facie evidence of the entry having been made, and of the contents thereof, or of the matter or things having been done or not done.

138.    Registrar and other officers not compellable to produce register, etc.—The Registrar or any officer of the Trade Marks Registry shall not, in any legal proceedings to which he is not a party, be compellable to produce the register or any other document in his custody, the contents of which can be proved by the production of a certified copy issued under this Act or to appear as a witness to prove the matters therein recorded unless by order of the court made for special cause.”

and contended that without making an effort to obtain certified copies

of the record of the petitioner, Registrar of Trade Marks and producing the

same to obviate the need to summon the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks,

straightway summons were being issued asking the petitioner Registrar of

Trade Marks to produce the records. The counsel for the petitioner Registrar

of Trade Marks further stated that the offices of the petitioner Registrar of

Trade Marks at different locations are very small, with skeletal staff whose

work is affected if the said staff is also required to appear as witness before

different Courts. It was contended that once the petitioner Registrar of Trade

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 3 of 8

Marks furnishes certified copies of its records, certified copies can be obtained and tendered in evidence and which, under the provisions aforesaid, would be admitted in evidence in all proceedings, without further proof or production of the original. It was further contended that once it is provided in Section 138 supra that the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks shall not in any legal proceedings to which it is not a party be compellable to produce the Register or any document in its custody, the contents of which can be proved by production of a certified copy issued under the said Act, the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks cannot be summoned as a routine matter, as is generally being done.

5.                 Per contra, it was the contention of the counsel for the respondents No.3&4 in Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 that such applications for certified copies made to the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks remain pending for an indefinite time and hence the need accrues to summon the record.

6.                 On 14^th July, 2017, the proposal, of this Court issuing directions to the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks for time bound issuance of certified copies was mooted and the counsels requested to exchange the draft orders incorporating the said directions.

7.                 The counsels have been heard further today.

8.                 The counsel for the respondents no.3&4 in Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 has contended, that notwithstanding the production of certified copies, need to summon the original record of the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks may still arise in certain cases.

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 4 of 8

9.                 The counsel for the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks states that Section 138 though prohibits production of records, contents of which can be proved by production of certified copy, but itself provides for the contingency where, notwithstanding production of certified copy, original may be required. It is however contended that the summoning of the petitioner Registrar of Trademark should not be in routine manner, without proper application of mind and it has to be by an order giving reasons.

10.            Though in my view the Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable against the order impugned in Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 but the petition having remained pending, it is deemed appropriate to proceed to issue directions of a general nature to all the offices throughout India of the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks qua the issuance of certified copies.

11.            The Registrars of Trade Marks are directed to:-

(i)                If not already in place, nominate one Nodal Officer of each branch to receive applications for certified copies and to issue certified copies.

(ii)              To, within two months of today, announce on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks, the particulars i.e. name/designation, address, phone number/s and email address of the Nodal Officer responsible for accepting and entertaining applications for certified copy and to issue certified copies for each office of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

(iii)           To, within six months of today, make a provision, if not already in existence, for making online applications for certified copies.

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 5 of 8

(iv)           To, within six months of today, make a provision on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks for disclosure of the status of the applications for certified copies including any deficiency or defect therein required to be remedied by the applicant and/or the date when it will be ready for collection.

(v)              To, till the aforesaid is functional, as an interim measure, make a provision for sending intimation, to the applicant/s for certified copies, of deficiencies / defects required to be rectified via e-mail, SMS and other modes of communication.

(vi)           To, endeavour to make provision for online payment of the fee and other charges if any for certified copies.

(vii)         To issue certified copies within one month of the receipt of a duly completed application.

(viii)      To indicate on the certified copy, whether it has been prepared from the original of the document or from a copy of the document.

(ix)           To  explore  the  possibility  of  making  an  endorsement  of

„original seen and returned‟ on the copies on the record, originals of which are returned.

(x)              To ensure, that the certified copies are legible and wherever the original / copy on the record of the Registrar of Trade Marks has any colour other than black and white, the certified copy reflects such colour.

(xi)           To, if the documents of which certified copies is sought have been lost or misplaced, intimate the same to the applicant

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 6 of 8

within one month as aforesaid of the application for certified copy having been made.

12.            Once the Registrar of Trade Marks has implemented the aforesaid, it is expected that neither will any of the parties to the litigation nor any of the Courts, where such litigations are pending, would mechanically issue summons to the Registrar of Trade Marks as witness, requiring it to produce records unless reasons are recorded as to why the purpose of summoning cannot be served by obtaining certified copies and tendering the same in evidence.

13.            The counsel for the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks states that for

issuing “expedited certified copies” within the meaning of the Proviso to Rule 122 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 also, the procedure above shall be followed.

14.            I may mention that Mr. S.K. Bansal counsel for the respondents no.3&4 in Civil Revision Petition No.146/2015 has during the hearing sought several other directions but which are beyond the scope of this Roster and the counsel / his client is free to avail of the appropriate remedies in that regard.

15.            The petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks shall be at liberty to put up this order on the website of the Registrar of Trade Marks for compliance by all litigants and Advocates.

16.            The counsel for the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks states that the position in Civil Revision Petition No.29/2017 is the same.

17.            The counsel for the respondents no.2&3 in C.R.P. No.29/2017 however states that the Registrar of Trade Marks was summoned in that case

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 7 of 8

for, inspite of a direction to file an Action Taken Report qua the matter of allowing the trade mark to proceed for registration without opposition filed thereto being disposed of, having not been filed.

18.            The counsel for the petitioner Registrar of Trade Marks states that if the Court has any reason to summon the Registrar of Trade Marks and has recorded the said reason in the order of summoning, the Registrar of Trade Marks would be bound to appear. The counsel however states that the Action Taken Report on an application for registration or on an opposition is also recorded and certified copy thereof can be issued; it is stated that the respondents no.2&3, without even obtaining the certified copy of the Action Taken Report, sought to summon the Registrar of Trade Marks.

19.            The counsel for the respondents no.2&3 in C.R.P. No.29/2017 states that the action was not taken.

20.            It will be open to the Civil Court where the suit, from which C.R.P. No.29/2017 arises, is pending, to decide whether any need to summon the Registrar of Trade Marks arises.

The petitions are disposed of. No costs.

A copy of this order be forwarded to Hon‟ble the Chief Justice to consider the need if any for circulating the same to all the Courts within the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

JULY 31, 2017

„pp‟..

C.R.P. No.146/2015 & C.R.P. No.29/2017                                                                                            page 8 of 8

KRBL LIMITED VS LAL MAHAL LIMITED

$~

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%			Reserved on: 26th July, 2017
		Pronounced on: 04th August, 2017
+	CS(COMM) 929/2016
	KRBL LTD				..... Plaintiff
	Through :		Mr.Ajay	Amitabh	Suman,
			Mr.Kapil	Kumar	Giri,and
			Mr.Vinay Shukla, Advocates.
	versus
	LAL MAHAL LTD AND ANR			..... Defendants
	Through :		Mr.Mohan Vidhani, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESH KHANNA

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

OA No.86/2016

1.                 This Chamber Appeal is to set aside order dated 21.03.2016 whereby IA No.201/2016 filed on behalf of appellant/plaintiff for bringing an additional list of witnesses on record and summoning 19 more witnesses was dismissed by learned Joint Registrar finding no justifiable grounds for its not filing the list of witnesses within a period of two weeks granted by this Court vide order dated 23.02.2015.

2.                 Plaintiff says when evidence was being recorded before the learned local commissioner, during his cross examination the witness (PW1)

OA No.86/2016 in CS (COMM) No.929/2016                                                       Page 1 of 3

realized the need to bring on record more witnesses to prove the facts-wrongly denied by the defendant while putting suggestions. Hence the plaintiff filed an additional list of witnesses but its effort failed by the impugned order. The learned counsel for defendant however submits that there is no justifiable ground hence the appeal needs to be rejected.

3.                 The plaintiff has filed a list of witnesses initially. The witnesses now purported to be summoned and examine are advertising companies, dealers/purchasers of rice & newspaper agencies to prove the plaintiff have been advertising and selling its products under the trade mark claimed for long, hence such witnesses are relevant. The interest of justice shall suffice if the plaintiff is allowed to summon four more witnesses viz. concerned person from a) Heart Throb Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd; b) from PHD Chambers of Commerce and Industry; c) from Cleghorn Witton Surveyors Pvt. Ltd; and d) from Indian Hotels Company Pvt. Ltd. to prove the invoices/bills etc. Rest of the witnesses are from newspaper offices to prove newspaper cuttings which may even otherwise be proved by producing newspapers.

4.                 In the circumstances, plaintiff is allowed to bring on record the amended list of witnesses in terms of above, within a week subject to cost of ₹20,000 payable to the learned counsel for the defendant for the delay caused and summons those. The local commissioner to examine the witnesses in a time bound manner.

5.                 The OA stands disposed of.

OA No.86/2016 in CS (COMM) No.929/2016                                                       Page 2 of 3

CS(COMM) 929/2016

6.                 List before the Local Commissioner on 10^th August, 2017 for further directions.

YOGESH KHANNA, J

AUGUST 04, 2017

DU

OA No.86/2016 in CS (COMM) No.929/2016                                                       Page 3 of 3

LETTER TRADE MARK

                                        

      This article deals with the Trade Marks comprised of Letter. There may be cases where the Trade Marks is essentially of Letters. Letters are the most essential feature of the Trade Marks. There may be cases where Trade Mark is comprised of Single Letter. The letter Trade Mark, comprised of single letter and descriptive to trade, are considered as poor trade mark and strong evidence of user required to establish the trade mark right. While the Trade Marks, comprised of more than one letter and not descriptive in nature to goods and trade, are considered to be relatively stronger trademarks. In case the Letter Trade Mark is comprised of unique device also, it gives strong protection to Trade Mark. Here are various Judgments and case laws where the Hon’ble Courts have recognized right in Letter Trade Marks.

1. Tube Investments of India Ltd. v. Trade Industries:(1997) 6 SCC 35:-The Competing Trade Marks were TI (within 2 concentric circles) Vs TI (within a single circle)-In this case the Court has granted injunction on the letter trade mark on the ground of Visual similarity between the two marks, coupled with the fact that the Defendant is using the same trade mark in relation to goods falling within the same class, even though different from goods for which mark is registered prima facie, poses a real danger that the product of the Defendant can be passed off as a product of the Plaintiff.

2. Aktiebolaget SKF v. Rajesh Engineering Corporation:1996 PTC(16)160:- The Competing Trade Marks were SKF Vs. SKI. In this case different explanations of the Defendant for using a mark does not strengthen its case but detracts from the truthfulness of the explanation. The use of SKI by the Defendant therefore is not bona fide and is a colorable imitation of SKF. Since adoption of the mark is dishonest, any use will be of no consequence.

3.  Weiss Associates, Inc v. HRL Associates, Inc(902 F.2d 1546):- The Competing Trade Marks were TMM  Vs. TMS. In this case the Court has held that It is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters than it is to remember figures. Even though the parties’ products were purchased by discriminating purchasers, there was nevertheless a likelihood of confusion at the initial stage of the purchasing process. It is submitted that in this case, the Court has given better protection to letter trade marks vis-à-vis the numeral trade marks and granted the protection.

4.         S. Mehal Singh v. M/s. M.L. Gupta & Anr :AIR 1998 Del 64: The Competing Trade Marks were ML  Vs. MLI. In this case the Court has observed that the question whether the two marks are likely to cause confusion or not is a question of first impression and it is for the Court to decide that question. (quoting AIR 1960 SC 142). While making comparison between the two competing letter trade marks the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi further observed that It is not right to take a portion of the word and say that because a portion of the word differs from the corresponding portion of the word in the other case, there is no sufficient similarity to cause confusion. The Court further put much emphasis on this fact that similarity on idea behind the competing trade marks has to be seen. The court further observed that the test of commonness of the idea between the two marks could be applied in deciding the question of similarity between them.

5.    Chemetron Corporation v. Morris Coupling and Clamp Co: 203 U.S.P.Q. 537:- The Competing Trade Marks were TT  Vs. TT. In this case the Court has observed that notwithstanding the design element of the opposite party’s mark, it is the letters “TT” that form the salient features of the mark and it is this feature that creates the commercial impression of the mark which the ordinary purchaser is likely to remember and rely upon as an indication of origin. The Court further observed that tt must be remembered that purchasers do not always have the opportunity to compare marks on a side-by-side basis and thus the tests that must be applied in determining the likelihood of confusion is not whether the marks are distinguishable when compared side-by-side but rather whether they so resemble one another as to be likely to cause confusion and this necessarily requires us to consider the fallability of memory of the average purchaser who normally retains only a general impression of trademark over a period of time.

6.    G.M. Modular Pvt. Ltd. Vs TM Marketing (India): 2007 (35) PTC 406 (Del):- The Competing Trade Marks were GM  Vs. TM:- In this case the Court has observed that At the stage of consideration of the application for interim injunction, all that has to be seen is prior use. The court further observed whether  the competing marks are not identical, test of determining deceptive similarity is the same for infringement and passing off [quoting Ramdev Food Products Limited v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors., 2006 (33) PTC 281 (SC). At last the Court observed Even though there are other added features in conjunction with which the competing marks GM and TM are used, a case for deceptive similarity is made out.

7.    Continental Connector Corporation Vs Continental Specialties Corporation: 492 F.Supp. 1088:- The Competing Trade Marks were CCC Vs. CSC. The Court observed that Initials are designed to be comprehended at a glance. If the number of letters is the same and there is a significant overlap in the letters used, that is generally sufficient to sustain a claim of similarity. (para 9 p.65-6).

8.    Crystal Corporation V. Manhattan Chemical Mfg. Co., Inc: 76 F.2d 506:- The Competing Trade Marks were ZBT Vs TZLB. The Court observed that It is well known that it is more difficult to remember a series of arbitrarily arranged letters combination of letters than it is to remember figures, syllables, words or phrases. The difficulty of remembering such lettered mark makes confusion between such marks when similar, more likely. The court further observed that

it unquestionably appears that the letters constitute the dominant portion of the Appellant’s mark. It is submitted that the instant case also establishes this fact the Letter Trade Marks are strong Trade Mark as the persons at large remembers the letters more than the numerals.

9.      The General Electric Co. of India (P.) Ltd Vs Pyara Singh and Ors:  AIR 1974 P&H 14:- The Competing Trade Marks were GEC Vs AEC. The Hon’ble High Court held both the letter trademarks to be similar and defendant was injuncted from passing off.

10.      MRF Limited Vs NR Faridabad Rubbers: 1998 PTC (18) 485(Del):- The Competing Trade Marks were MRF Vs NRF. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that bearing ill mind the class of purchasers of defendant's lubes, who are not expected to keep goods manufactured by the plaintiff and defendant side by side to decide which product they intend to buy, I feel that the afore noted distinguishing features, including the pre-fix of 'Swastik" logo, pointed out by learned counsel for the defendant, do not bring about any material or significant change in distinguishing the two trade marks "MRF" and "NRF", by the class of consumers, who are likely to purchase the goods concerned, particularly when phonetically they are so close. It is no doubt true that the first letters of the trade marks of the plaintiff and the defendant are different but by the remaining two common letters, a purchaser can easily be misled for phonetic similarity. There is likelihood of even the first letter 'N' being pronounced as 'M'.

11.   Mahashian Di Hatti V/s Raj Niwas, Proprietor of MHS Masalay: 2011 (46) PTC 343 (Del):- The Competing Trade Marks were MDH Vs MHS. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that the trademark being used by the Defendant is visually similar to the trademark being used by the Plaintiff. Though phonetically, there may not be much similarity in the two trademarks on account of use of the letter "S' in place of "D' and re-arrangement of the letters. The last letter in the trademark of the Plaintiff is "H', whereas it has been made second letter in the trademark of the Defendant. The last letter in the trademark of the Plaintiff is "H', whereas it is "S' in the trademark of the Defendant. However, considering the strong visual similarity, rather weak phonetic similarity, would not be of much consequence and would not permit the Defendant to use the logo being presently used by him.

                                                AJAY AMITABH SUMAN, ADVOCATE

                                                DELHI HIGH COURT

KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL VS P K OVERSEAS PVT LTD

$~3.

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM(M) No.517/2017, CM No.17488/2017 (for stay) & CM No.17489/2017 (under Section 151 CPC).

KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL                                                          ..... Petitioner

Through:        Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh

Suman, Rahul Shamra and Mr. Kapil

Giri, Advs.

versus

P K OVERSEAS PVT LTD                                                           ..... Respondent

Through:        Mr.  Akhil  Sibal,  Sr.  Adv.with  Mr.

Akhil Sachar, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

%                                         20.07.2017

1.              This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated (6^th March, 2017 of the Court of the Additional District Judge-10 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in TM No.48/12 (974/16) taking on record and admitting into evidence certain documents deposed by the witness DW1 of the respondent / defendant in the course of his cross-examination by the petitioner / plaintiff.

2.                 The senior counsel for the respondent / defendant appeared on caveat.

3.                 The counsels have been heard.

4.                 What has emerged is that (i) the suit from which this petition arises has been filed by the petitioner / plaintiff against the respondent / defendant for reliefs of injunction and damages etc. on the ground of the respondent / defendant passing off its goods namely rice as that of the petitioner /

plaintiff by adopting the device of „TAJ MAHAL‟; (ii) the interim order

CM(M) No.517/2017                                                                                                                                  page 1 of 3

sought by the petitioner / plaintiff was denied to the petitioner / plaintiff and against which the petitioner / plaintiff came up before this Court in appeal;

(iii)    the said appeal was disposed of by directing the trial to be completed within six months; (iv) the trial has now been completed and the suit posted

for final arguments on 22^nd July, 2017; and, (v) during the cross-examination by the petitioner / plaintiff of DW1 on 6^th March, 2017, DW1 in response to one of the questions made a voluntary statement also referring to the documents in the file which had been summoned by the respondent / defendant on that date and the learned Additional District Judge has overruled the objection of the petitioner / plaintiff to the taking on record and admissibility of the said documents and allowed the said documents to be tendered as Ex.DW1/P8 collectively.

9.                 It is the contention of the senior counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff that the learned Additional District Judge has erred in taking the said documents on record and admitting the same into evidence and in overruling the objection of the petitioner / plaintiff as to admissibility.

10.            I may notice that the learned Additional District Judge has kept the

question of the “extent of proof” open for adjudication at the stage of final arguments.

11.            I have asked as to the relevance of the aforesaid evidence and the issues framed in the suit.

12.            Neither have the issues framed been placed on record nor is either of the counsel today able to supply copy thereof.

13.            Without knowing what are the issues in the suit, the relevance of the evidence and the need to interfere with the order cannot be gauged.

CM(M) No.517/2017                                                                                                                                  page 2 of 3

14.            The senior counsel for the respondent / defendant states that the documents on which Ex.DW1/P8 has been put were infact documents in another suit between the same parties with respect to the same packaging and record of which suit had been summoned on that date. It is also contended that during the course of examination of the DW1 by the petitioner / plaintiff, some other documents from the summoned suit record were also proved as Ex.DW1/P6 and qua which no challenge is made by the petitioner / plaintiff.

15.            The senior counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff states that the documents Ex.DW1/P6 were not objected to because copies thereof were ready on the file of the subject suit.

16.            The  learned  Additional  District  Judge  having  kept  the  matter  of

“extent of proof” open and subject to adjudication, presumably at the stage of final arguments, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition also with liberty to the counsels to at the stage of final arguments address further arguments if any with respect to the documents Ex.DW1/P8 being taken on record and being admitted into evidence and the learned Additional District Judge is requested to in the final judgment in the suit also deal with the said contentions uninfluenced by the proceedings dated 6^th March, 2017.

17.            No costs.

18.            It is made clear that I have not heard the counsels on the challenge in this petition and thus this order should not be construed as this Court having formed any opinion thereon.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 20, 2017

„pp‟..CM(M) No.517/2017                                                                                                                  page 3 of 3