- (1.) The instant appeal is filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the Order dated April 22, 2013, passed by the Ld. Joint Registrar dismissing the application filed by it under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC (I.A. No. 6336/2013), seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
(2.) The plaintiff/appellant has sought to place on record, Apostilled Registration Certificates issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in favour of the appellant/plaintiff's mark "ROYAL", as well as certain bills of lading and invoices, which attest to the ownership of the mark in favour of the its predecessor-in-title and erstwhile plaintiff, M/s. Kusha Inc. The plaintiff submits that these documents are relevant to resolve the disputes between the parties to the suit.
(3.) The plaintiff/appellant submits that it was impleaded only in 2012, and stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile plaintiff M/s. Kusha Inc. vide Order dated July 17, 2012. The plaintiff/appellant submits that it needed time to collect additional relevant documents from the erstwhile plaintiff in order to place on record all material facts which addressed the real controversy in issue, namely, the ownership of the mark "ROYAL". And that, although the Ld. JR has observed that the plaintiff/appellant had been impleaded only in 2012, she has found fault with the plaintiff/appellant for not filing the additional documents before the commencement of trial. In furtherance of its submission, the plaintiff/appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy & Anr. v. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors., 1994 4 SCC 659, as well as Joginder Singh v. Amar Nath Gupta, 2012 8 AD(Del) 439.;