Rita Verma Vs Chetan Adesera

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.

¶5

... Defendant/Petitioner Versus

¶6

Chetan Adesera, son of Prafull Chhaganlal Adesera,

¶7

Piyush Adesera, son of Prafull Chhaganlal Adesera

¶8

Manish Adesera, son of Late Shashikant Adesera,

¶9

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.

¶10

... Plaintiffs/Respondents

¶11

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

¶13

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Ms. Shruti Shekhar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate

¶14

¶15

Reserved on: 18.11.2025 Pronounced on: 20/11/2025

¶16

Per Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

(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,

¶20

Page 1 of 13

¶21

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶22

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 nondisclosure 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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Page 2 of 13

¶26

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶27

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:-

¶28

(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:

¶29

(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.

¶30

(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;

¶31

(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

¶32

Page 3 of 13

¶33

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶34

or any substantial part thereof in any material form in any manner whatsoever.

¶35

(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;

¶36

(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:

¶37

(g) Enquiry into loss and damage and decree upon such sum as may be found due and payable;

¶38

(h) Receiver;

¶39

(i) Injunction;

¶40

(j) Costs:

¶41

(k) Further and/or reliefs:

¶42

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.

¶43

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:-

¶44

Page 4 of 13

¶45

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(iii) News Paper ‘Uditvani’ dated 01.04.2016,

¶49

(iv) News Paper ‘Uditvani’ dated 06.04.2016,

¶50

(v) Certified copy of the application for Trade Mark Registry, vide Application No.3305681 dated 09.07.2016 of the Shop of CHHAGANLAL.

¶51

(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.

¶52

(vii) Certified copy of Trade Mark Registry vide Application No.4214895 dated 24.06.2019 of the Shop of CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE THE ORIGINAL.

¶53

(viii) Certified copy of Photograph of front side of the Shop of CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE SILVER SHOW ROOM.

¶54

(ix) Certified copy of Photographs of front side of the Shop of the Plaintiffs CHHAGANLAL DAYAL JEE SILVER.

¶55

Page 5 of 13

¶56

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶57

(x) Certified copy of Photographs of front side of the Shop of the Plaintiffs, CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE JEWELLERS.

¶58

(xi) Certified copy of 11 (Eleven) Sheets of Cash Memos of the Shop of the Plaintiffs CHHAGANLAL DAYALJEE.

¶59

(xii) Newspaper ‘Uditvani’ dated 26.08.2017.

¶60

6. In the aforesaid application, it was pleaded by the defendantpetitioner 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.

¶61

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.

¶62

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.

¶63

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

¶64

Page 6 of 13

¶65

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶66

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 5^th application which cannot be permitted.

¶67

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.

¶68

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 5^th application being moved by the defendant for filing additional documents which has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

¶69

12. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have gone through the materials on record.

¶70

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

¶71

Page 7 of 13

¶72

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶73

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

¶74

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.

¶75

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

¶76

Page 8 of 13

¶77

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶78

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.

¶79

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.

¶80

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]

¶81

Page 9 of 13

¶82

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶83

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:-

¶84

“ 6. Rule 1-A of Order 8 CPC provides the procedure for production of documents by the defendant which is as under:

¶85

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

¶86

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.

¶87

(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.

¶88

(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.

¶89

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

¶90

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

¶91

witnesses, or

¶92

(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”

¶93

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

¶94

Page 10 of 13

¶95

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶96

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.

¶97

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.

¶98

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

¶99

Page 11 of 13

¶100

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶101

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).

¶102

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. ”

¶103

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:-

¶104

“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.

¶105

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.

¶106

Page 12 of 13

¶107

Neutral Citation No. 2025:JHHC:34689-DB

¶108

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.”

¶109

20. In the instant case, the Trial Court has adopted a hyper-technical view and thereby erred in rejecting the application filed by the defendantpetitioner under Order VIII Rule 1-A of the CPC, more particularly when the defendant was still leading her evidence.

¶110

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.

¶111

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 Trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event, by 31^st of March, 2026. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 28.11.2025.

¶112

23. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶113

(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)

¶114

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)

¶115

November 20^th , 2025 A.F.R.

¶116

Manoj/Cp.2

¶117

Page 13 of 13

Rita Verma v. Chetan Adesera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita Verma v. Chetan Adesera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Chatterjee Alias Goutam Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Frontline (Ncr) Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Represente Thro Its Authorized Signatory Ashiwini Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Excise and Prohibition

Webel Technology Limited, Represented through Its Authorized Signatory Namely Saikat Pal, Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Dept. of Excise and Prohibition

Arun Joseph (Ex-Clerk, GRADE-1, Pcnl, Ec Railway, Drm Office, Dhanbad) Vs the Union of India, Ministry of Railways, through General Manager, East Central Railway, Hazipur

The State of Jharkhand, through Its Chief Engineer, Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project Vs M/S R.K. Construction Private Limited, through Its Director, Mr. Siraj Ahmed

Ashok Kumar Sahay Vs the State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Palamau