Euphoric Innovations Pvt Ltd And Another v. Mr.Shahin Ppk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.09.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
1. Euphoric Innovations Private Limited Plot No.10-12, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Malumichampatty (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr. Binu Rajendran
2. Walkaroo International Private Limited, Plot No.10-12, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Malumichampatty (PO), Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India - 641 050..
represented by its Authorized Signatory Ms. Drishya J Moses ... Applicants / Plaintiffs vs.
Shahin PPK S/o. Basheer PPK ... Respondent / Defendant PRAYER: Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code pryaing to permit the Page No.1 of 6
applicants / Plaintiffs to file additional documents in C.S. No.100 of 2024. For Applicants :
Ms. R. Vidhya Shankar For Respondent :
Mr. K.V. Sundararajan
ORDER
This application has been filed by the petitioners to permit them to file additional documents in the main Suit in C.S. No.100 of 2024 under Order XIV, Rule 8 of Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 14(3) of Civil Procedure Code.
2. According to the applicants, they are the Plaintiffs in the main Suit and they filed the main Suit for the reliefs of permanent injunction and compensation. At the time of filing the main Suit, they filed some documents and the application-mentioned documents are very essential to prove the case and they were unable to produce those documents at the time of filing of the Page No.2 of 6
Suit due to non-availability. Therefore, they have filed the present application.
3. The respondent filed a counter stating that the applicants have not stated any proper reason as to why they have not filed the documents at the time of filing the Suit and the application-mentioned documents are not necessary to decide the case. Therefore, the application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Considering the nature of application, facts and circumstances of the case and the application is filed only to receive the documents and merely allowing the application to receive the documents, it will not amount to proof of documents, this Court is of the opinion that the application is to be allowed and the documents can be received subject to proof and relevancy. The Page No.3 of 6
respondent is at liberty to raise objections, if any, at the time of marking the documents.
6. Therefore, this application is allowed. The application mentioned documents can be received subject to proof and relevancy. 04.09.2025 [1/2] mjs P.DHANABAL.,J Page No.4 of 6
mjs Page No.5 of 6
04.09.2025 [1/2] Page No.6 of 6