1. Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the defendant’s application to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC. The court emphasized that allowing such a filing lies within its discretion and must be exercised judiciously to ensure that the case is adjudicated fairly, considering all relevant facts, including subsequent developments.
2. Facts
- The Suit: The plaintiffs filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for the alleged infringement of their patent (IN’026).
- The Divisional Application: While the suit was ongoing, the plaintiffs’ Divisional Application (IN’5338), related to the parent patent, was refused by the Controller of Patents. This refusal occurred after the filing of the suit and was not disclosed by the plaintiffs.
- Defendant’s Actions: The defendant sought to file an additional written statement to bring this fact on record, arguing that the refusal constituted a subsequent development relevant to the case.
3. Issues
The court considered the following issues:
- Can an additional written statement be filed after the 120-day statutory limit for written statements under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
- Does the refusal of the Divisional Application constitute a material and relevant subsequent development?
- Does the doctrine of res judicata or issue estoppel bar the filing of the additional written statement?
4. Petitioner’s Arguments (Plaintiffs)
- Non-Maintainability: The application was argued to be non-maintainable, as Order VIII Rule 1 CPC restricts the filing of written statements to a 120-day period.
- Irrelevance: The refusal of the Divisional Application was claimed to be immaterial to the present case, and there was no obligation on the plaintiffs to disclose it.
- Bar by Estoppel: Since issues related to the Divisional Application had been adjudicated upon in prior interim orders, the defendant was barred from raising them again by res judicata or issue estoppel.
5. Respondent’s Arguments (Defendant)
- Material Subsequent Development: The refusal of the Divisional Application was a material fact relevant to the case’s subject matter and needed to be brought on record.
- Obligation to Disclose: The plaintiffs breached their duty of disclosure under Order XI Rule 1(12) CPC by failing to disclose the refusal.
- Court’s Discretion: Order VIII Rule 9 CPC allows additional written statements if justified, and the defendant sought leave to exercise this provision based on subsequent developments.
6. Analysis of the Law
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC vs. Order VIII Rule 1 CPC:
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) limits the filing of initial written statements to 120 days.
- Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, however, operates independently, giving courts discretion to allow additional written statements if subsequent developments occur, even beyond the 120-day limit.
- The court emphasized that these provisions serve different purposes and should not be conflated.
- Duty of Disclosure (Order XI Rule 1(12) CPC):
- The provision imposes a continuing obligation on parties to disclose material facts and documents throughout the suit’s duration.
- The plaintiffs’ failure to disclose the refusal of the Divisional Application breached this duty.
- Purpose of Additional Written Statements:
- The court reiterated that the purpose of allowing additional written statements is to facilitate the adjudication of the real dispute between parties, provided it does not cause prejudice.
- Judicial Precedents:
- In Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally, the Supreme Court held that courts should liberally allow amendments or additional pleadings if they help resolve the controversy without causing prejudice.
- The court applied this principle, emphasizing that procedural rules are meant to advance justice.
7. Precedent Analysis
The court distinguished this case from prior judgments:
- Res Judicata and Issue Estoppel: The court clarified that prior findings in interim orders are prima facie in nature and cannot preclude adjudication on the merits during the trial.
- Inconsistent Pleas: The court cited Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh, where the Supreme Court allowed inconsistent defenses in additional written statements, provided they did not alter the suit’s core nature.
8. Court’s Reasoning
- Materiality of Refusal: The refusal of the Divisional Application was deemed a subsequent development that was material to the case, as it related directly to the patent at issue.
- Prejudice to Plaintiffs: Allowing the additional written statement would not prejudice the plaintiffs, as the defendant was merely placing existing facts on record.
- Judicial Discretion: The court held that its discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC must be exercised to allow the defendant to bring relevant facts before the court.
9. Conclusion
The court granted the defendant leave to file an additional written statement, subject to the condition that it should not go beyond the facts disclosed in the defendant’s earlier application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC. The court directed the filing within 30 days.
10. Implications
This judgment highlights:
- The distinction between mandatory timelines for written statements and discretionary leave for additional pleadings.
- The importance of continuing disclosure in commercial litigation.
- The judiciary’s role in balancing procedural compliance with the overarching goal of substantive justice.
By allowing additional written statements in justified cases, the court ensures that the real controversy is fully and fairly adjudicated, preserving the integrity of the judicial process.