Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s BTV Kannada Private Limited, filed a civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India against an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, allowing IA No.13 in OS No.584/2022. The suit was filed by the petitioner for trademark infringement and passing off against the respondents. The respondents had filed their written statement within the extended time. Subsequently, after issues were framed, the respondents filed IA No.13 under Section 151 CPC read with Section 2(i) and Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, seeking leave to file an additional written statement. The trial court allowed the application, holding that the additional written statement was necessary to bring on record certain facts that had come to light after the filing of the original written statement. The petitioner challenged this order, contending that the application was not maintainable under Section 151 CPC as the CPC provides specific provisions for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17, and that the additional written statement sought to introduce new facts and defenses that could have been raised earlier. The respondents argued that the additional written statement was necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and that the court had inherent powers to allow it. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 151 CPC and Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and held that the trial court's order was without jurisdiction. The court observed that the inherent powers under Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked when there is a specific provision in the CPC for amendment of pleadings. The court further held that the proposed additional written statement sought to introduce new facts and defenses that were within the knowledge of the respondents at the time of filing the original written statement, and allowing it after issues were framed would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. The High Court set aside the impugned order and dismissed IA No.13.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Additional Written Statement - Inherent Powers - The trial court allowed an application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, permitting the defendant to file an additional written statement after issues were framed. The High Court held that the order was without jurisdiction as the application was not maintainable under Section 151 CPC when the CPC provides specific provisions for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. The court further held that the proposed additional written statement sought to introduce new facts and defenses that could have been raised earlier, and allowing it would cause prejudice to the plaintiff. (Paras 10-15) B) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12(1)(d) - Leave to File Additional Written Statement - The trial court invoked Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which allows the court to pass any order necessary to secure the ends of justice. The High Court held that this provision cannot be used to bypass the specific procedural requirements of the CPC, especially when the defendant had ample opportunity to file the written statement earlier. (Paras 16-20) C) Civil Procedure - Order VIII Rule 1 - Time Limit for Filing Written Statement - The defendant filed the written statement within the extended time granted by the court. However, the application for additional written statement was filed after issues were framed. The High Court noted that the purpose of Order VIII Rule 1 is to ensure timely filing of pleadings, and allowing additional pleadings after issues are framed would defeat this purpose. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could allow an application under Section 151 CPC read with Section 12(1)(d) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to file an additional written statement after issues were framed, when the proposed additional written statement sought to introduce new facts and defenses that were not pleaded earlier.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2023, and dismissed IA No.13 filed by the respondents.
Law Points
- Leave to file additional written statement after framing of issues
- Order VIII Rule 1 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Commercial Courts Act 2015 Section 12(1)(d)
- inherent powers cannot override statutory provisions
- delay and prejudice to plaintiff
