Delhi High Court Upholds Plaintiff's Right to File New Documents with Replication.
22-August-2025
Commercial Suit >> Civil & Consumer Law
The defendants contended that the plaintiffs' documents should have been filed with the initial plaint or within 30 days of filing the suit, as required by Order XI Rule 1 of the CC Act. They argued that the plaintiffs failed to file a formal application demonstrating a "reasonable cause" for the delay and that the documents were an attempt to overcome deficiencies in their original case. The defendants also cited court precedents (CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Saregama India Ltd. v. ZEE Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.) to support their claim that the timelines in commercial suits must be strictly followed to prevent parties from filing documents at a late stage.
In response, the plaintiffs argued that the documents were a direct reply to a specific defense raised in the written statement. The defendants, in their written statement, claimed they had never manufactured or sold products using the disputed "ENBLUE" trademark. The plaintiffs, in their replication, countered this by filing bill of lading and commercial invoices as evidence that the defendants had exported products with the trademark. They relied on Rule 5 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (DHC Rules), which permits a plaintiff to file documents that are in their "possession and power" along with their replication, provided they are served on the opposing party. The plaintiffs argued that this rule makes a separate application unnecessary for such "responsive" documents.
The court, after hearing both sides and reviewing the documents, dismissed the appeal. It held that the documents filed by the plaintiffs were indeed responsive to the specific defense raised by the defendants. The court found that Rule 5 of the DHC Rules allows for such filings, and since the documents were relevant to the case and were submitted in response to a new assertion from the defendants, the Joint Registrar's decision to accept them was correct. The court also granted the defendants the liberty to file their own additional documents in response to the plaintiffs' new evidence.