LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Delhi HC has reiterated in Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. vs. Sourabh Jinal and ors. that order VIII rule 1A(3) clearly stipulates that the documents which should have been produced before the Court but have not been so produced, shall not be produced at the stage of hearing without the leave of the Court.
  • The suit in question had been filed by the plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction and restraining the use of the trademark ‘JINDAL’. An application was moved by the applicant/defendant Sourabh Jindal to bring on record certain documents which he claimed were the result of certain developments which took place after the ws had been filed.
  • This application was strongly opposed by the plaintiffs. They argued that the present application was barred by Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC. They also argued that the defendants have not been able to show any cogent reason as to why the documents could not be placed on record before.
  • To support the contention that before the Courts grant the application for the production of additional documents, it has to be proved that the said documents were not within the knowledge of the defendants, reliance was placed on a previous decision of the Delhi HC in the case of Polyflor Limited vs. Sh. A.N.Goenka and ors (2016)
  • The applicants relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble SC in the case of Sugandhi (dead) by Legal Representatives and anr. vs. P. Rajkumar (2020)10 SCC where the Apex Court held that mere technical and procedural hurdles cannot stand in the way of doing complete justice in a case.
  • The Delhi HC observed, after hearing both the parties, that the provision of Order VIII Rule 1A(3) made it clear that a document which ought to have been produced before the Court and was not so produced, could only be produced later with the leave of the Court. Looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the OCurt observed that it would be in the interest of justice that the application is allowed.
  • Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Sugandhi’s case cited above, the Court observed that litigation is a journey towards the ascertainment of the truth, and that Courts should be lenient in granting the applications under Rule 1A(3) for the production of documents. The Court also observed that a procedural hurdle should not come in the way of doing complete justice in a case.
  • Thus, the application was granted.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  39  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query