No Special Procedural Leniency For IP Suits: Bombay High Court Enforces Strict Order XI Disclosure Norms

No Special Procedural Leniency For IP Suits: Bombay High Court Enforces Strict Order XI Disclosure Norms

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has partly rejected a trademark owner’s attempt to introduce additional documents nearly six years after filing suit, holding that intellectual property disputes are not entitled to any special procedural indulgence under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In a judgment pronounced on February 20, 2026, Justice Arif S. Doctor ruled that the disclosure requirements under amended Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory and must be strictly enforced in commercial suits.

Factual Background

FinTree Education Pvt Ltd registered the mark “FINTREE” in 2012 and instituted a commercial intellectual property suit in 2019 against Fintree Finance Pvt Ltd alleging trademark infringement. In 2023, the plaintiff amended its plaint to include a passing off claim. Thereafter, it filed a second application seeking to place additional pleadings and documents on record, including branch photographs, invoices, website screenshots and Chartered Accountant certificates.

The plaintiff contended that intellectual property disputes warrant a flexible procedural approach to safeguard statutory and proprietary rights, particularly where amendments are sought prior to trial.

Procedural Background

The application was filed under the framework of amended Order XI of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Order XI Rule 1(5) bars a litigant from relying on documents in its possession at the time of filing the suit unless “reasonable cause” is shown for non-disclosure at the threshold stage. The defendant opposed the application, questioning whether the statutory scheme permits successive amendments and introduction of documents without proceeding to trial.

Issues

1. Whether intellectual property disputes are entitled to a relaxed disclosure standard under the Commercial Courts Act.

2. Whether the plaintiff had shown “reasonable cause” under Order XI Rule 1(5) for delayed disclosure of documents.

3. Whether the exception permitting production of documents in answer to a defendant’s case was applicable.

4. To what extent post-suit documents could be brought on record.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff argued that intellectual property litigation involves statutory and proprietary rights that merit a flexible procedural approach. It submitted that amendments sought prior to commencement of trial should ordinarily be permitted and that the documents were relevant for adjudication of its claims.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff was attempting to repeatedly amend pleadings and introduce documents through successive applications, contrary to the discipline mandated under the Commercial Courts Act. It argued that the statutory framework does not permit deviation from strict disclosure requirements.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Doctor rejected the contention that trademark disputes deserve greater procedural latitude. The Court held that the statutory framework under the Commercial Courts Act is self-contained and does not contemplate a separate standard for particular categories of commercial disputes. The Court stated that, “To permit greater latitude merely because the dispute concerns intellectual property would, in effect, dilute the discipline embedded in the amended Order XI and would undermine the very object of the provision.”

Emphasising the rigour of the disclosure regime, the Court reiterated that documents not disclosed at the threshold can be introduced later only with leave of the Court and upon establishing reasonable cause. It clarified that mere oversight, inadvertence or the plaint being voluminous does not constitute reasonable cause. The Court also rejected reliance on the exception permitting production of documents in answer to the defendant’s case, holding that this cannot be used as a device to introduce documents long within the plaintiff’s knowledge and possession. It described the present attempt as an effort to circumvent the mandate of Order XI Rule 1(5).

However, the Court distinguished documents that came into existence after institution of the suit. It permitted updated registration status pages and recent Chartered Accountant certificates to be taken on record, while clarifying that their admissibility and relevance would be examined at trial. Amendments confined purely to pleadings were allowed, as the suit remains at a pre-trial stage and the changes do not alter its fundamental character.

Decision

The High Court partly allowed the application. Documents that existed prior to institution of the suit and were not disclosed without reasonable cause were not permitted to be introduced. Post-suit documents were allowed to be placed on record, subject to proof at trial. Amendments limited to pleadings were permitted. The interim application was disposed of without any order as to costs.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocates Hiren Kamod with Anees Patel i/b. Ketan Dhavle. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Advocates Alankar Kirpekar with Ayush Tiwari, Vishal Hegde, Rohit Maurya i/b. Samudra Legal LLP.