In CS(COMM) 57/2017-DEL HC- Application for framing additional issues can’t be rejected only on ground of delay, if such issues are necessary for determining controversy between parties: Delhi HC allows plea of SAREGAMA India for framing additional issue in its trademark infringement suit against Zee Entertainment
Justice Amit Bansal [28-04-2023] 

Read Order: SAREGAMA INDIA LIMITED Vs. ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LIMITED 

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 1, 2023: The Delhi High Court has allowed an application filed on behalf of SAREGAMA India under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to frame an additional issue regarding decree of rendition of accounts in a trademark infringement suit after noting that the issue was essential for the just and effective adjudication of the controversy.

“However, in view of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, an application for framing additional issues cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay, if otherwise, the Court is of the view that additional issues are required to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the case and such issues are necessary for determining the controversy between the parties”, Justice Amit Bansal asserted.

It was the plaintiff’s case that while preparing for the evidence in the matter, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that inadvertently, the issue regarding rendition of accounts by the defendant had not been framed. Accordingly, the present application had been filed to frame an issue with regard to the aforesaid.

The attention of the Court was also drawn to paragraph 15 of the plaint where averments with regard to rendition of accounts by the defendant had been made and the contents of the said paragraph had been denied by the defendant in his written statement.

On the contrary, the respondents submitted that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was governed by a License Agreement in terms of which annual license fee was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. Therefore, there was no question of the defendant providing a statement of accounts and hence, such an issue was not framed. 

It was also contended that the present application had been filed in a highly belated matter i.e., more than three years after the framing of issues.

At the outset, the Bench made it clear that in terms of Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC, the Court is required to frame issues upon all material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC empowers the Court to amend issues or frame additional issues before passing a decree if such issues may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

Noting the fact that in its written statement, the defendant had simply denied the contents of the paragraph, the Bench held that the parties were at variance on the issue, whether the plaintiff was entitled to rendition of accounts and therefore, an issue to this effect was required to be framed for proper adjudication of the present suit.

Though noting that there was an inordinate delay on behalf of the plaintiff in moving the present application, the Bench said, “However, in view of the provisions of Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC, an application for framing additional issues cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay, if otherwise, the Court is of the view that additional issues are required to be framed in the facts and circumstances of the case and such issues are necessary for determining the controversy between the parties.”

Considering the fact that the additional issue as sought to be framed was essential for the just and effective adjudication of the controversy in the present case,the Bench allowed the application but also directed the plaintiff to pay cost of Rs 50,000 to the defendant.

However, the Bench dismissed another application of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 5 of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 seeking to place on record additional documents.

Referring to Order XI Rule 1 (1), (4) and (5) of the CPC, the Bench affirmed that in all commercial suits, the plaintiff was obliged to file a list of documents and photocopies of documents in its power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the suit along with the plaint. These documents include documents referred and relied in the plaint as well as documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, even if the same is adverse to the plaintiff’s case.

Noting that no explanation had been given by the plaintiff as to why the aforesaid documents were not filed along with the replication and the plaintiff also failed to provide any reasonable cause 5 years after the replication was filed, the Bench said, “Permitting a party to file additional documents at any stage would make a complete mockery of Order XI of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits. The whole object of the aforesaid provisions of the CPC pertaining to commercial suits would be defeated if a party is permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit.”

Thus, dismissing the application, the Bench observed that the documents ought to have been filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint.