Deadline to file rejoinder to reply under Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules not mandatory: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently clarified that the deadline to file a rejoinder to a reply under Rule 7(x) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (IPD Rules) is not mandatory. [Vinay Kumar GB v. Sudhir Kumar and anr.].Rule 7(x) of the IPD Rules lays down that the rejoinder to a reply filed by the respondent in an original petition is to be filed within the period prescribed by the Court or within 30 days from the date on which the Court directs the filing of such rejoinder..Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the said Rule does not lay down any consequence that would follow if such a deadline is not adhered to. As such, he concluded that this deadline was a only directory provision.“Resultantly, it cannot be said that, if the rejoinder is not filed within the period of 30 days envisaged in the said Rule, the rejoinder would liable to be struck off the record, where the Court is satisfied that the rejoinder was not filed within the said period for valid reasons”, the Court explained..The Court compared the language used in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the IPD Rules, to note that while the CPC and DHC Rules stipulate consequences of the non-filing of a written statement (under CPC) or a replication (under the DHC Rules) within the specified time period, these consequences are absent under the IPD Rules..The High Court also noted that in the case of SCG Contracts (India) Pvt Ltd v. KS Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd, the Supreme Court had commented on the “great importance” of the strict language used in the CPC when it came to the filing of written statements. This was because the CPC expressly envisaged the forfeiture of the defendant’s right to file a written statement after the expiry of 120 days..The Court further observed that the DHC Rules, under Chapter VII, Rule 5, laid down that a replication had to be filed within 30 days, extendable by 15 more days (on imposition of costs by the Court), from the receipt of the written statement, "but not thereafter.".The Court added that Chapter VII Rule 5 of the DHC Rules would not be applicable to the IPD Rules, since the Rule 7(x) is self-contained in relation to filing of a rejoinder in original IPD petitions..As such, the Court concluded that Rule 7(x) of the IPD Rules was a directory provision, and, that rejoinders filed after the expiry of the 30-day time period mentioned can also be taken on record..The author is a Senior Associate at Fidus Law Chambers..[Read Order]