Allowed¶24

T N Janarthanam v. N Venkatesan

Madras HC26 Mar 2025A/252/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application to file additional documents allowed; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Order VII Rule 14 CPC; leave to file additional documents after written statement; trade mark dispute between same parties; pleadings and orders from earlier proceedings; affidavit of admission/denial; objections on admissibility, relevance and proof at trial; Madras High Court Commercial Division; Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.; dated 26.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to the applicant/plaintiff to file the additional documents described in the schedule to the Judge's summons in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.198 of 2024, subject to the defendants' right to file an affidavit of admission/denial and raise objections on admissibility, relevance and proof in the course of trial. ¶24

T N Janarthanam Vs N Venkatesan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant/plaintiff should be permitted to file additional documents in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.198 of 2024 at the post-written-statement stage, notwithstanding the defendants' objection that the reasons given do not constitute a reasonable cause for not filing the documents earlier.

¶19

Court's answer

Considering the facts and circumstances holistically, and although there was merit in the defendants' contention that the reasons set out were not valid, the Court was inclined to allow the application for filing additional documents.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The leave to file additional documents is made subject to the right of the defendants to file an affidavit of admission/denial and to raise objections, inter alia, on the grounds of admissibility, relevance and proof in the course of trial.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Commercial Division) allowed A.No.252 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.198 of 2024, an application under Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, permitting the plaintiff to file additional documents described in the schedule to the Judge's summons. The documents related to affidavits, orders and the like in other proceedings between the same parties concerning the same trade marks, pending before the Court. Although the Court found merit in the defendants' contention that the reasons for the delayed filing were not valid, it considered the facts holistically and allowed the application, subject to the defendants' right to file an affidavit of admission/denial and to raise objections, inter alia, on admissibility, relevance and proof in the course of trial.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.03.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶5

A.No.252 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.198 of 2024

¶6

T.N.Janarthanam ... Applicant/Plaintiff

¶7

-vs-

¶8

1.N.Venkatesan

¶9

2.M/s.Namma Veetu Kalaynam, Represented by its Managing Partner Mr.N.Venkatesan, No. A 83, Sathiavani Maligai, A Block, 3rd Street, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600102. ... Respondents/Defendants

¶10

Prayer : Application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules Read With Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC, to permit the applicant/plaintiff to file the additional documents in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.198 of 2024 before this Court.

¶11

For Applicant : Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this application, the plaintiff seeks leave to file the additional

¶15

1/4

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

documents described in the schedule to the Judge's summons.

¶18

In the affidavit in support of the application, it is stated that the plaintiff did not file the documents while instituting the suit on the basis that the same may not be relevant. Upon the written statement being filed, it is stated that it has become necessary to place on record pleadings and orders in earlier proceedings between the same parties.

¶19

Learned counsel for the defendants opposes the application primarily on the ground that the reasons set out in paragraph 5 do not constitute a reasonable cause for not filing these documents earlier.

¶20

The plaint was admitted in October 2024 and the suit is at the stage where written statement has been filed but the plaintiff has prayed for leave to file a reply statement. The documents evidently relate to affidavits, orders and the like in proceedings between the same parties, which are pending before this Court. It appears that all the proceedings relate to the use of the same trade marks.

¶21

2/4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Considering the above facts and circumstances holistically,

¶24

although there is merit in the contention of learned counsel for the defendants that the reasons set out in paragraph 5 are not valid, I am inclined to allow this application subject to the right of the defendants to file an affidavit of admission/denial and raise objections, inter alia, on the grounds of admissibility, relevance and proof in course of trial.

¶25

¶26

26.03.2025 (1/2)

¶27

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

¶28

3/4

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

¶31

A.No.252 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.198 of 2024