Plaintiff Can't File Documents As Per Its Whims And Fancies At Any Stage Of Commercial Suit: Delhi High Court In Zee v. Saregama
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit.“The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said. The Court dismissed an application filed by...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a plaintiff cannot be permitted to file documents as per its whims and fancies at any stage of a commercial suit.
“The whole purpose of expeditious disposal of commercial suits would be frustrated if the parties are permitted to file additional documents at any stage of the suit,” Justice Amit Bansal said.
The Court dismissed an application filed by Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited in its copyright infringement suit against Saregama India Limited. Zee sought Court's leave to place on record additional documents as well as an additional affidavit of evidence of its witness.
The suit was filed seeking permanent injunction to restrain Saregama from infringing Zee's copyright in the sound recordings incorporated in 29 cinematograph films.
Justice Bansal found no merit in Zee's application and dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000. The costs has to be paid by Zee to Saregama within two weeks.
The Court noted that admittedly, Zee was aware that it did not possess the originals of the documents on the basis of which it had filed the suit. Justice Bansal said that no steps were taken by Zee to lead secondary evidence to prove the documents till the filing of the application in question in October last year. Zee cannot wake up after seven years to take steps to lead secondary evidence, the Court said.
"In order to lead secondary evidence, a party has to lay down the foundational evidence for the same, in the absence of which, secondary evidence would be inadmissible," Court said.
It concluded that Zee failed to show any due diligence on its part to lead secondary evidence despite being aware that it did not have in its possession the originals of the documents.
“Allowing the aforesaid documents to be taken on record at this stage would be completely contrary to the statutory scheme laid in place for conduct of commercial suits,” the Court said.
Title: ZEE ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES LTD v. SAREGAMA INDIA LTD
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 250