Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G. B

NAVIN CHAWLA, J APRIL 06, 2021 RN/P/A

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserved: 23.03.2021 Date of Decision: 06.04.2021 + CM(M) 181/2021 SUDHIR KUMAR @ S. BALIYAN ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Amit Mehta, Mr.Jayant Kumar, Advs. versus VINAY KUMAR G. B. ..... Respondent Through Ms.Kruttika Vijay, Ms.Kaveri Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-10 (Central) in Suit, being TM No.123 of 2019, titled Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G B &Ors., dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") seeking leave of the learned Trial Court to place additional documents on record. 2. The above suit has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia claiming for a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent from using the Trade Mark "INSIGHT", "INSIGHT ACADEMY", Page 2 "INSIGHT IAS ACADEMY" and "INSIGHT PUBLICATIONS". The petitioner filed the above-referred application in the said suit, seeking leave of the Court to file certain additional documents on record. The same has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court by the impugned order. 3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application of the petitioner on the ground that the documents/invoices were suspicious in nature and that there was no explanation given as to why they were not forming part of the plaint. He submits that apart from various invoices, the petitioner had sought leave to place on record in form of the additional documents advertisements which are in public domain, etc. These could not have been disallowed as being suspicious in nature. 4. He further submits that in the present case, by the judgment dated 07.12.2020 of this Court, passed in CM(M) Nos.544 and 547 of 2020, titled Vinay Kumar G B v. Sudhir Kumar @ S. Balyan, the respondent also had been allowed to place additional documents on record. He submits that therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the petitioner is granted a similar opportunity to file additional documents on record and the same being considered by the learned Trial Court. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. She submits that though the Impugned Page 3 Order is dated 13.11.2019, the present petition was filed only on 01.03.2021. The trigger for filing of the present petition is the dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule(s) 1 and 2 of the Code. 6. On merit, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for grant of leave of the Court to file such additional documents. She submits that prior to the filing of the present Suit, the petitioner had filed a Suit, being Trade Mark Suit No. 236 of 2018. In the said Suit, the respondent had filed its written statement denying the assertion of the petitioner of adoption and use of the trademark as claimed by him since 2006. Though the petitioner had filed his replication in the said Suit, the documents now sought to be placed on record were neither filed nor any mention thereof had been made in the replication. The petitioner thereafter withdrew the said Suit, and subsequently, filed the present Suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, again the documents which are now sought to be placed on record, were not filed. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the application under Order XXXIX Rule(s) 1 and 2 of the Code filed along with the plaint in the present Suit, was heard by the learned Trial Court on 09.09.2019 on the plea of the petitioner for ad-interim injunction. The same was listed for or