The Jharkhand High Court has set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Jamshedpur, which had rejected a defendant’s application to file additional documents at the evidence stage. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar, emphasized that procedural and technical hurdles should not obstruct substantial justice.
The Jharkhand High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed by the defendant in a trademark infringement suit, challenging the rejection of her application under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to bring additional documents on record. The Commercial Court had dismissed the application on the ground of delay and prior opportunities. The High Court, however, observed that the Trial Court had adopted a “hyper-technical view” and directed the acceptance of the documents subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000.
Background of the Case
The dispute stems from Original Suit No. 04 of 2017, filed by the partners of “Chhaganlal Dayaljee” (Plaintiffs/Respondents) against Rita Verma, proprietor of “Chhaganlal Madanlal & Sons” (Defendant/Petitioner). The suit sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs’ trademark “CHHAGANLAL” or “CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE” and from passing off her business as that of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs concluded their evidence on September 18, 2024. Subsequently, the defendant, who is currently leading her evidence and has examined seven witnesses, filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A CPC. She sought to place on record several documents, including certified copies of Trade Mark applications, certificates of registration, newspaper cuttings from 2016 and 2017, and photographs of the shops involved.
The petitioner pleaded that she had obtained certified copies of documents that could not be filed earlier and that certain newspaper cuttings were previously untraced.
Decision of the Trial Court
On September 12, 2025, the District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, rejected the petitioner’s application. The Trial Court noted that this was the defendant’s fifth application for filing additional documents and that the case was at an advanced stage. The court held that the petitioner failed to establish reasonable cause for the non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing the Written Statement.
Arguments of the Parties
The Petitioner: Represented by Advocate Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the petitioner argued that the impugned order was erroneous and that the Trial Court had taken a “hyper-technical view.” It was submitted that the additional documents were relevant and necessary for the adjudication of the issues, and their rejection would cause irreparable loss.
The Respondents: Represented by Advocates Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, and Mr. Ankit Vishal, the respondents contended that Commercial Suits must be disposed of expeditiously. They argued that the defendant could not be permitted to lead evidence “in perpetuity,” highlighting that multiple opportunities had already been granted.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench acknowledged the legal proposition that suits before Commercial Courts must be decided expeditiously, referring to the Supreme Court judgments in BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd. (2020) and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020). However, the Court observed that this principle does not mean proceedings should not be conducted in accordance with law.
The Court noted:
“The principle does not apply in the instant case for the simple reason that the suit, which is the subject matter of the lis, was filed way back in the year 2017 and as observed above, the plaintiffs themselves closed their evidence only on 18.09.2024.”
The Bench further observed that the Trial Court did not record any finding that the documents sought to be produced were not relevant for a just decision.
On Procedural Law: Citing the purpose of procedural law, the Court stated:
“Procedures have always been viewed as the handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or sanctify miscarriage of justice… Procedural prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice.”
Reliance on Precedents: The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sugandhi v. Rajkumar (2020), which held that if documents are necessary for a just decision, leave should be granted even if there is delay, provided cogent reasons are assigned.
The Court also cited Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr (2022), quoting:
“It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand-maid of justice and, therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.”
Conclusion and Directions
The High Court concluded that the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application.
“In the instant case, the Trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical view and thereby erred in rejecting the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC, more particularly when the defendant was still leading her evidence.”
The Decision:
- Order Set Aside: The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court is set aside.
- Petition Allowed: The petition is allowed, permitting the additional documents to be taken on record.
- Cost Imposed: The allowance is subject to the payment of a cost of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner to the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.
- Timeline for Disposal: The Court directed the Trial Court to decide the suit, filed in 2017, as expeditiously as possible and in any event by March 31, 2026.
- Next Hearing: The parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on November 28, 2025.
Case Information
- Case Title: Rita Verma vs. Chetan Adesera & Ors.
- Case Number: C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025
- Bench: Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajesh Shankar
