FINTREE EDUCATION PVT LTD v. FINTREE FINANCE PRIVATE LIMITED
Application of Mandatory Disclosure Regime under Order XI CPC in Commercial Suits and the Admissibility of Documents Created Post-Institution of the Suit.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5031
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Order VI Rule 17 (Amendment of Pleadings); Order XI Rule 1 (Disclosure and Discovery in Commercial Suits); Intellectual Property Law (Trademarks)
- Facts: The Plaintiffs filed a commercial intellectual property suit in 2019 for trademark infringement regarding the mark "FINTREE". Initially, the Plaint lacked a prayer for passing off, leading to a first amendment application in 2021 which was allowed in 2023. In 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a second Interim Application seeking further amendments to the Plaint and Notice of Motion to add more pleadings and several documents (Exhibits C1, D1, F1-F7). These documents included CA certificates, updated registration status, and evidence of business presence. The Plaintiffs argued these were either subsequent documents or necessitated by the Defendant's earlier affidavit. The Defendant opposed the application, citing a lack of due diligence and the mandatory nature of the disclosure regime under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court as an Interim Application under Order VI Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Issue: Whether a Plaintiff in a commercial suit can be permitted to introduce additional documents and amend pleadings several years after the institution of the suit under the rigors of Order XI of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
- Holding: The Interim Application was partly allowed. The Court permitted the introduction of documents that came into existence after the suit was filed and allowed amendments confined solely to the pleadings, but rejected documents that were within the Plaintiffs' possession at the time of the first amendment.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the disclosure regime under Order XI is mandatory and designed for procedural discipline; however, it carves out exceptions for documents that did not exist at the time of filing (Exhibits C1, F2, F3). These cannot be barred by the "reasonable cause" test of Order XI Rule 1(5) because they could not have been disclosed initially. Conversely, documents like D1 and F1, which existed during the first amendment in 2021, could not be introduced now as the "answer to case set up by defendant" exception under Rule 1(1)(c)(ii) only applies to pleadings (Plaint/Written Statement) and cannot be used as a ruse to circumvent the requirement of showing reasonable cause for belated filing. Regarding amendments to pleadings, the Court applied the liberal pre-trial amendment rule, noting that the trial had not yet commenced and no prejudice would be caused.
🔒 For Members Only