AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 1355
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ademark, copyright, damages, delivery up etc. In the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiffs' predecessor had started the business of selling sweets in the year 1912 and the trademark/label 'HIRA SWEETS' was conceived and adopted by the plaintiffs' predecessor in the year 1960. It was also averred that the plaintiff No. 1 was the registered proprietor of the original artistic work 'HIRA SWEETS' and it became the registered proprietor of the mark and device 'HIRA SWEETS' under Classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in 2016. The defendant was served with the summons in suit and after availing various opportunities, filed the written statement however, thereafter, stopped appearing before the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplaint against its counsel before the Delhi High Court Bar Association. 6. In support of the applications, the defendant has also placed reliance on the medical documents of the son of the defendant's proprietor, namely, Master Sparsh Sharma. It is stated that Master Sparsh Sharma, aged about 10 years, underwent a heart surgery on 04.07.2018. Reliance is also placed on the medical documents of the mother of the defendant's proprietor namely, Smt. Savita Pandit. It is stated that Smt. Savita Pandit used to have dialysis and expired on 20.04.2019. It is averred that for the said reasons, the defendant could not appear before the Court and also could not file the captioned applications within time. 7. In support of his submissions, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt has to see whether the summons in the suit were duly served or not and/or whether the defendant was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. In the present case, the defendant was duly served with the summons in the suit and had appeared. 12. "Sufficient Cause" is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed. The Court, in its discretion, has to consider the "sufficient cause" in the facts and circumstances of every individual case. Although in interpreting the words "sufficient cause", the Court has wide discretion but the same has to be exercised in the particular facts of the case. 13. Article 123 of The Limitation Act prescribes that the application for setting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361], Lonand Gram panchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi [AIR 1968 SC 222], Surinder Singh Sibia v. Vijay Kumar Sood [(1992) 1 SCC 70] and Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corpn. [ (2010) 5 SCC 459].) xxx xxx xxx 15. While deciding whether there is sufficient cause or not, the court must bear in mind the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned and that the technicalities of the law should not prevent the court from doing substantial justice and doing away the illegality perpetuated on the basis of the judgment impugned before it. (Vide State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh [2000) 9 SCC 94], Madanlal v. Shyamlal [(2002) 1 SCC 535], Davinder Pal Sehgal v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of the defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the court has no power to set aside an ex-parte decree. The words "was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" must be liberally construed to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties particularly when no negligence or inaction is imputable to the erring party. Sufficient cause for the purpose of Order 9 Rule 13 has to be construed as an elastic expression for which no hard-and-fast guidelines can be prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion in deciding the sufficient cause keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. The "sufficient cause" for non-appearance refers to the date on which the absence was made a ground for proceeding e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isions relied by learned counsel for the defendant has held that a party should not suffer from the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. However, the facts in present case show that after becoming aware of the ex-parte decree on 18.07.2019, the defendant took no steps against its counsel for more than 14½ months i.e., till 06.10.2020 when a complaint was stated to be filed and that too, two weeks prior to the filing of the captioned applications. In the opinion of this Court, the action taken seems to be only an afterthought with the aim of filing the present application. 19. Insofar as the delay of 582 days in filing the application is concerned, the defendant has sought to explain the same by claiming that s....