Jharkhand High Court

Defendant/ vs Chetan Adesera on 20 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

                                         Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB




  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 C.M.P. No. 1086 of 2025
RITA VERMA, aged about 42 years, wife of Santosh Kumar Verma,
resident of Tulsi-113, Sahara Sunderban, Phase-II, Mango, P.O. and P.S.
Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001 and
Sole Proprietor of Chhaganlal Madanlal & Sons, situated at Dhanna
Singh Building, New Purulia Road, Mango, P.O. and P.S. Mango, Town
Jamshedpur, PIN 831012, District East Singhbhum.
                                                ...   Defendant/Petitioner
                         Versus
1. Chetan Adesera, son of Prafull Chhaganlal Adesera,
2. Piyush Adesera, son of Prafull Chhaganlal Adesera
3. Manish Adesera, son of Late Shashikant Adesera,
4. Smt. Pasam Adesera, widow of late Shashikant Adesera,
    All Partners of "Chhaganlal Dayaljee", a Partnership firm, having its
    Office and Showroom at Diagonal Road, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S.
    Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, PIN 831001.
                                             ...    Plaintiffs/Respondents
                         ---------
CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
                         ---------
For the Petitioner:      Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
                         Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents:     Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
                         Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate
                         ---------
Reserved on: 18.11.2025                 Pronounced on: 20/11/2025
Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed by the defendant-petitioner for the following reliefs:-

(i) For issuance of an appropriate order for quashing/setting

aside order dated 12.09.2025, (Annexure-5) in connection

with Original Suit No. 04 of 2017, passed by Shri Anand

Mani Tripathi, District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer,

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

Commercial Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, wherein

petition filed by Petitioner under Order VIII, Rule 1-A of

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for acceptance of additional

documents, has been rejected on the alleged ground that

Petitioner has failed to establish reasonable cause for non-

disclosure of the documents at the time of filing of Written

Statement and, as such, Petitioner cannot be granted leave to

produce documents at belated stage.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate order declaring that in

terms of Order VIII, Rule 1-A of Civil Procedure Code,

1908, additional documents filed by Petitioner can be

accepted at subsequent stage, as said additional documents

are relevant and necessary for adjudication of the issues

involved between the parties and, as such, additional

documents (as per List of Documents dated 04.09.2025) are

required to be accepted by learned Court below.

2. The defendant-petitioner is the Proprietor of a shop known as

'Chaganlal Madanlal & Sons Jewellers', which is situated at Dhana

Singh Building, New Purulia Road, Mango, Town Jamshedpur, District

East Singhbhum, whereas, the plaintiffs-respondents are partners of a

shop known as 'Chhaganlal" or "Chhaganlal Dayaljee", situated at

Diagonal Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

3. The plaintiffs-respondents had filed Original Suit No.04 of 2017

against the present petitioner for infringement and passing of order under

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with the following prayers:-

(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, her

men, agents, servants, distributors, retailers, dealers, assigns or

any one of them claiming under or through it in any manner

infringing the Plaintiffs' trademark "CHHAGANLAL" OR

"CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE" by use of identical/deceptively

similar trade mark or any identical or similar mark to the

Plaintiffs' registered trademark:

(b) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant,

her men, agents, servants or any one of them claiming under or

through it in any manner from passing off her business as that

of the Plaintiffs by use of the mark "CHHAGANLAL" or

"CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE" and/or any other mark

deceptively and/or identically similar thereto.

(c) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant,

her men, agents, servants or any one of them claiming under or

through it in any manner from using the logo by use of any

other logo deceptively and/or identically similar to that of the

Plaintiffs;

(d) A decree of permanent injunction, restraining the Defendant,

her men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from

infringing the Plaintiffs' registered trademark by reproducing it

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

or any substantial part thereof in any material form in any

manner whatsoever.

(e) A decree of perpetual injunction, restraining the Defendant, her

men, agents, employees, servants and dealers from using the

said logo thereby infringing of copyright of the Plaintiff's

artistic work;

(f) Delivery up and destruction of all packets having the Plaintiff's

registered trademark including wrappers, letterhead and other

materials bearing the mark "CHHAGANLAL" or

"CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE" and/or any other trademark

identical and/or deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs:

(g) Enquiry into loss and damage and decree upon such sum as

may be found due and payable;

(h) Receiver;

(i) Injunction;

(j) Costs:

(k) Further and/or reliefs:

4. In the suit so filed, the issues were framed and thereafter the

plaintiffs-respondents led their evidence and concluded the same on

18.09.2024. Thereafter, it is the defendant-petitioner who was leading her

evidence and as on date has examined as many as 07 witnesses.

5. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an

application under the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1-A of the Code of

Civil Procedure, to put on record the following documents:-

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

(i) Certified copy of Application No.773292 dated 24.10.1997

of the shop of the CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE

MANUFACTURING JEWELLERS, Bistupur, Jamshedpur

under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in the

name of Mr. Shasikant Chhaganlal.

(ii) Certified copy of the Certificate of Registration of Trade

Mark vide Trade Mark No. 1611685 dated 15.10.2007 of the

shop of Mr. Shashikant Chhaganlal Adesara and others.

(iii) News Paper 'Uditvani' dated 01.04.2016,

(iv) News Paper 'Uditvani' dated 06.04.2016,

(v) Certified copy of the application for Trade Mark Registry,

vide Application No.3305681 dated 09.07.2016 of the Shop

of CHHAGANLAL.

(vi) Certified copy of application for Trade Mark Registry vide

Application No.3344290 dated 24.08.2016 of the shop of

Chetan Adesara regarding Logo CHD-1918.

(vii) Certified copy of Trade Mark Registry vide Application

No.4214895 dated 24.06.2019 of the Shop of

CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE THE ORIGINAL.

(viii) Certified copy of Photograph of front side of the Shop of

CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE SILVER SHOW ROOM.

(ix) Certified copy of Photographs of front side of the Shop of

the Plaintiffs CHHAGANLAL DAYAL JEE SILVER.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

(x) Certified copy of Photographs of front side of the Shop of

the Plaintiffs, CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE JEWELLERS.

(xi) Certified copy of 11 (Eleven) Sheets of Cash Memos of the

Shop of the Plaintiffs CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE.

(xii) Newspaper 'Uditvani' dated 26.08.2017.

6. In the aforesaid application, it was pleaded by the defendant-

petitioner that the petitioner had obtained certified copies of the

documents which could not be filed earlier in the suit and some of these

documents, i.e., the newspaper cuttings, could not be traced out earlier

and, therefore, the same could not be filed at an earlier occasion.

7. It is further averred that the additional documents, as mentioned in

the List, are relevant for the proper adjudication of the matter and if they

are not accepted, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury.

8. The plaintiffs-respondents had contested the petition by filing a

reply wherein it was contended that the additional documents which had

not been pleaded should not be placed on record and marked as Exhibits.

9. The learned District Judge-III-cum-Presiding Officer, Commercial

Court, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial

Court') rejected the application on the ground that the evidence of the

plaintiffs-respondents in the Original Suit was closed vide order dated

18.09.2024 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence

and on various occasions the defendant has filed time petitions for

placing on records additional documents which have been allowed on

payment of cost and the last opportunity was given to the defendant on

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

16.05.2025 and even thereafter the defendant filed yet another petition

for filing additional documents which was allowed vide order dated

18.08.2025 subject to payment of cost of Rs.2000/- and this is the 5th

application which cannot be permitted.

10. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-defendant, that the impugned order passed by

the learned Trial Court is not only erroneous, but is not sustainable in the

eyes of law as the Trial Court has taken a hyper-technical view of the

matter.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing

for the plaintiffs, has vehemently argued that the Commercial Suit has to

be expeditiously disposed of and, therefore, defendant cannot in

perpetuity be permitted to lead evidence, given the fact that this is the 5th

application being moved by the defendant for filing additional documents

which has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

12. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and

have gone through the materials on record.

13. It is the settled legal proposition that the suit filed before the

Commercial Court has to be decided expeditiously as held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd.,

(2020) 4 SCC 234, and Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs.

K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585. However, that

does not mean that proceedings are not to be conducted in accordance

with law. The principle does not apply in the instant case for the simple

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

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 and it is not in dispute that

thereafter the defendant is leading her evidence and has already examined

07 witnesses. That apart, it is not even the finding recorded by the Trial

Court that the documents sought to be produced by the defendant-

petitioner are not relevant for the just and proper decision of the case.

14. The learned Trial Court has failed to consider that the laws of

procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of

doing substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an

adjudication on merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal,

property and other laws. Procedures have always been viewed as the

handmaid of justice and not meant to hamper the cause of justice or

sanctify miscarriage of justice. All the rules of procedures are handmaid

of justice.

15. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be

liberal or stringent but the fact remains that the object of prescribing

procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no

party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the

process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific

language of the statute, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure or any

other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which

would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the

ends of justice. The mortality of justice at the hands of law troubles a

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

judge's conscience and points an angry interrogation at the law reformer.

Equally settled is the proposition that processual law is not to be a tyrant

but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. Procedural

prescriptions are the handmaid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a

resistant in the administration of justice.

16. There is a need for interpreting a part of the adjective law dealing

with procedure alone in such a manner as to subserve and advance the

cause of justice rather than to defeat it, as all laws of procedure are based

on this principle.

17. Procedural and technical hurdles cannot be allowed to come in the

way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural

violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts

must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon

procedural and technical violation. After all, the court should not forget

the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the

foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to

thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. [Refer: Sardar Amarjit

Singh Kalra (Dead) by Lrs v. Pramod Gupta (Smt) (Dead) by Lrs &

Anr, (2003) 3 SCC 272; Constitutional Bench's judgment Kailash v.

Nanhku & Ors, (2005) 4 SCC 480, Sushil Kumar Sen v. State of

Bihar, (1975) 1 SCC 774; State of Punjab v. Shamlal Murari, (1976) 1

SCC 719]

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

18. As regards the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1-A of the CPC, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi v. Rajkumar, (2020) 10 SCC 706,

observed as under:-

"6. Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC provides the procedure for production of

documents by the defendant which is as under:

"1-A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon

which relief is claimed or relied upon by him.--(1) Where the

defendant bases his defence upon a document or relies upon any

document in his possession or power, in support of his defence or

claim for set-off or counterclaim, he shall enter such document in a

list, and shall produce it in court when the written statement is

presented by him and shall, at the same time, deliver the document

and a copy thereof, to be filed with the written statement.

(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or

power of the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose

possession or power it is.

(3) A document which ought to be produced in court by the

defendant under this Rule, but, is not so produced shall not,

without the leave of the court, be received in evidence on his behalf

at the hearing of the suit.

(4) Nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents--

(a) produced for the cross-examination of the plaintiff's

witnesses, or

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his

memory."

7. Sub-rule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents

in his possession before the court and file the same along with his

written statement. He must list out the documents which are in his

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the

defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with

his written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be

received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of

the suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for

cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses or handed over to a

witness merely to refresh his memory. Sub-rule (3) states that a

document which is not produced at the time of filing of the written

statement, shall not be received in evidence except with the leave

of the court. Rule 1(1) of Order 13 CPC again makes it mandatory

for the parties to produce their original documents before

settlement of issues.

8. Sub-rule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to

the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been

produced in the court along with the written statement, with the

leave of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant

such leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no

straitjacket formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a

good cause being shown by the defendant.

9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.

Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in

the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the

procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the

adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice

rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We

should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey

towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is

required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

truth in every dispute. Therefore, the court should take a lenient

view when an application is made for production of the documents

under sub-rule (3).

10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an

application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the

documents along with the written statement. They have stated that

these documents were missing and were only traced at a later

stage. It cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for

arriving at a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the

courts below ought to have granted leave to produce these

documents."

19. In addition to the above, we also need to refer another judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma & Ors v.

Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma & Anr, Civil Appeal No.4096 of

2022 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issues

regarding production of a document at a later stage under Order VIII

Rule 1 of the CPC had observed as under:-

"We find that the trial Court as well as the High Court have

gravely erred in law in not permitting the defendants to produce

documents, the relevance of which can be examined by the trial Court on

the basis of the evidence to be led, but to deprive a party to the suit not

to file documents even if there is some delay will lead to denial of

justice.

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.

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The orders passed by the trial

Court and the High Court are set aside. The appellants defendant Nos.2

to 5 are permitted to file the documents and to prove the same in

accordance with law."

20. 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.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated

above, we find merit in this petition and the same is accordingly allowed.

The order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit

No.04 of 2017 is set aside. However, this order will be subject to

payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the

Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.

22. Taking into consideration the fact that the instant suit was filed in

the year 2017, it is not only desirable but is rather incumbent upon the