Commercial Court Act Doesn't Prevent Applicability Of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC For Filing Additional Written Statement After 120 Days: Delhi HC

Justice Mini Pushkarna said, “There is nothing in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 to suggest that the provisions of Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC shall not be applicable to Commercial Suits post the expiry of period of One Hundred and Twenty (120) days for filing of a written statement. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that additional written statement can be filed only within the statutory limit of One Hundred and Twenty (120) days, cannot be accepted.”

The Court was considering Natco Pharma Limited's (defendant) application for filing of additional written statement in a suit filed by Novartis Ag (plaintiffs).

The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging patent infringement against the defendants. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs had also filed a Divisional Application to the suit patent.

However, later the plaintiff filed a letter before the Controller of Patents that they do not wish to pursue the said Divisional Application and thus, will not be attending the hearing. As a result, the Controller of Patents refused the Divisional Application.

Upon knowing this fact, the defendant filed an application for vacation of interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff. During the pendency of this application, the defendant also filed the present application seeking leave of the Court to file an additional written statement.

The plaintiff opposed the said application on the ground that since the Division Application was pending even prior to the institution of the suit, it does not constitute a 'subsequent development' for the purposes of additional written statement.

The High Court observed that it has authority to grant leave to file additional written statement to take into account subsequent events that may have a bearing on the suit.

It noted that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC is aimed at advancing the cause of justice and doing substantial justice between the parties.

The Court observed that while filing additional written statement is not a matter of right, it can be granted if the party provides convincing reasons for filing additional written statements.

“The Court would assess the plea of the party as regards the justification and cogent reasons for filing additional written statement, and as to why said pleas could not be raised at the time of filing the written statement. However, filing of additional written statement cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a party would have to establish plausible grounds for granting leave to file additional written statement.”

The plaintiffs also contended that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC cannot be read in such a way so as to take away the time limit of 120 days for filing the written statement as prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. They argued that the defendant ought to have reserved its right to file the additional written statement in its written statement.

However, the Court rejected this argument and said that there is nothing in the Commercial Courts Act which indicates that Order 8 Rule 9 CPC would not be applicable to commercial suits after the expiry of 120 days.

It remarked, “This Court cannot read into a statute for a condition which the legislature has not appended. The language of the provision of Order VIII Rule 9 CPC is plain and unambiguous, and does not make any stipulation that liberty to file additional written statement can be granted only if the same is within the statutory period, as stipulated in Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. “

Here, the Court noted that the plaintiffs did not mention of the Divisional Application and its refusal before the court. It stated that under Order 11 Rule 1(12) CPC, parties have a continuing obligation to disclose documents which have come to their notice.

It further noted that the Divisional Application was refused after the filing of the present suit, it is 'subsequent development' to the completion of the pleadings in the suit.

The Court was of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if filing of additional written statement is allowed.

“Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiffs if the present application is allowed and the defendant is allowed to file an additional written statement in order to bring on record the facts pertaining to the Divisional Application of the plaintiffs.”

The Court thus granted the defendant leave to file an additional written statement to incorporate the facts pertaining to Divisional Application.

Case title: Novartis Ag & Anr. vs. Natco Pharma Limited 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 24