Clarifying the Court’s Discretion to Allow Additional Written Statements Beyond the 120-Day Limit in Commercial Suits

I. Introduction

The Judgment rendered in Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited, before the High Court of Delhi (decided on January 8, 2025), revolves around a dispute concerning the alleged infringement of a patent (IN’026) granted to Novartis AG. The Plaintiffs (Novartis AG & another related entity) sued Natco Pharma Limited seeking a permanent injunction to prevent infringement, alongside other reliefs such as damages and delivery up.

Central to the Judgment is Natco’s request to file an additional written statement under Order VIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Natco contended that new facts, specifically those regarding a Divisional Patent Application (IN“5338”) filed (and subsequently refused) by Novartis while the main suit patent was in force, warranted further pleadings. The Plaintiffs, however, argued that any additional written statement would be untimely and that the Divisional Application was immaterial to the infringement claim.

This Judgment clarifies the legal principles on whether and when a court can allow an additional written statement in a commercial suit, including if it can be allowed beyond the statutory 120-day limit typically imposed on filing a written statement. Furthermore, the court addresses how information about subsequent developments must be disclosed under continued disclosure obligations in commercial litigation.

II. Summary of the Judgment

In its ruling, the Court granted Natco Pharma Limited leave to file an additional written statement. The Judge held:

Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC allows parties to file additional written statements with the Court’s leave, and this provision was not curtailed by the Commercial Courts Act’s mandatory 120-day limit for the initial written statement.
The refusal of the Divisional Application by the Controller of Patents (for reasons unrelated to full merits) constituted a “subsequent development,” which Natco could validly seek to bring on record.
The Plaintiffs themselves had not disclosed the Divisional Application’s outcome, and under Order XI Rule 1(12) of the CPC (as amended for commercial suits), both parties were under a continuing obligation to disclose fresh material.
The Plaintiffs’ objections regarding “issue estoppel” or “res judicata” were premature because the findings at the interim injunction stage were only prima facie; final adjudication had yet to occur.
The Court concluded that no prejudice would be caused by allowing additional pleadings, provided Natco limited itself to the content already introduced in its application for vacating the interim injunction (I.A. 4636/2023).

Ultimately, the Court found Natco’s request justifiable and instructed the Defendant to file the additional written statement within 30 days, emphasizing procedural fairness and the importance of considering all relevant developments in the interest of adjudicating the real controversy between the parties.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court drew from multiple precedents to articulate its position:

Ansal Properties and Industries Limited v. State of Haryana & Another (2009) 3 SCC 553
This decision reiterated the principle that courts should not judicially insert provisions into a statute when its language is unambiguous. Here, the Court applied that logic to confirm that Order VIII Rule 9 stands independently of Order VIII Rule 1, and there is no statutory limitation restricting additional written statements to the 120-day limit.
Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Bangerjee (1957 SCC OnLine SC 51)
The Supreme Court highlighted that a prima facie opinion during interim stages does not constitute final findings, reinforcing the notion that issues decided at the interim level do not preclude final adjudication on the merits.
Olympic Industries v. Mulla Hussainy Bhai Mulla Akberally & Others (2009) 15 SCC 528
This case demonstrated the Supreme Court’s inclination for liberal allowance of amendments or additional statements where it would serve the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that no prejudicial injury should bar the introduction of material facts that help resolve the core dispute.
P. Saraswathi v. C. Subramaniam (2013 SCC OnLine Mad 3224)
The Madras High Court’s ruling in this matter echoed that courts have wide discretion to allow additional written statements. As long as the pleadings do not unfairly harm the other side, the focus should be on ensuring all crucial issues are put before the court.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds through several core principles:

Distinction Between the Original Written Statement and Additional Written Statement: The Court notes that Order VIII Rule 1 (as amended under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015) imposes a strict timeline of 120 days for filing the first written statement. However, Order VIII Rule 9 stands apart, allowing the Court to permit subsequent pleadings at its discretion. The Court found no legislative intent—either explicit or implicit—to bar additional written statements strictly after 120 days.
Continuing Obligation to Disclose: Under Order XI Rule 1(12) CPC, the Court highlighted the ongoing duty of both parties to reveal new, relevant documents/material. Because the Divisional Application’s refusal post-dated the initial pleadings, the Defendant had every right to bring this information before the Court as part of its defense.
No Final Adjudication on Divisional Application’s Merits: The Divisional Application (IN“5338”) was refused largely because Novartis declined to pursue it, not because the Patent Office conclusively ruled on its merits. Therefore, the Court reasoned that referencing this refusal in an additional written statement might still reveal facts relevant to patent validity, but it did not constitute a binding determination of IN’026’s validity or change the interim findings on infringement.
Prima Facie Findings vs. Final Findings: The previous orders (January 9, 2023 and April 9, 2024), while discussing the Divisional Application at length, rendered only interim or prima facie observations. The Court stressed that such observations cannot be equated with final determinations and do not automatically bar a defendant from raising issues in the main trial.
Prevention of Prejudice: Plaintiffs argued that they would be prejudiced by the late filing. The Court dismissed these fears, indicating that the best interest of justice called for a thorough airing of new facts. The Plaintiff would have a full opportunity to respond, meaning no irreparable prejudice would arise.

C. Impact

Looking ahead:

Greater Procedural Flexibility: This Judgment underscores that even in commercial litigation—where procedural rules are notably strict—the courts must balance rule-bound efficiency with equitable considerations. This ruling clarifies that courts may use their discretion to allow new pleadings that deal with relevant, subsequent developments.
Enhanced Disclosure Obligations: The emphasis on Order XI Rule 1(12) CPC signals heightened expectations for litigants to promptly reveal any newly discovered facts or documents. Parties cannot hide behind procedural technicalities to remain silent on material developments.
Guidance on Divisional Patent Issues: Although the Court did not finally rule on whether the Divisional Application’s refusal undermines the main patent’s validity, it indicated that defending or attacking patent validity requires full factual disclosure. Patent owners and alleged infringers alike must be mindful that even unpursued or refused divisional applications could become relevant in infringement litigation.
Advancement of Substantial Justice: By allowing Natco to file an additional written statement, the Court prioritized thorough adjudication of the real dispute rather than adherence to a strict technical timeline. As a result, future defendants in similar commercial suits may cite this Judgment for more liberal consideration of subsequent pleadings.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

Order VIII Rule 9 of the CPC: This provision lets a defendant (or any party) file additional written statements if the court allows. Unlike the main written statement (governed by Order VIII Rule 1), no fixed statutory window (like the 120-day limit in commercial suits) precludes the court from granting permission for later statements.
Divisional Patent Application: Under Indian patent law, applicants may file a “divisional” application if an original application (often called the “parent”) contains more than one invention. Here, Novartis filed one but chose not to pursue it, leading to refusal. The significance was whether that refusal reflected on the parent patent’s validity—but the controller’s refusal did not reach that issue definitively.
Prima Facie Findings vs. Final Adjudication: “Prima facie” indicates an initial impression or belief formed at an interim stage—often used when courts decide temporary injunctions. It is not equivalent to a final judgment and does not legally bind the ultimate outcome at trial.
Issue Estoppel: A legal principle barring parties from re-litigating issues that have been conclusively determined. However, the Court emphasized that estoppel applies to final determinations on the merits; an interim finding does not necessarily trigger estoppel.

V. Conclusion

The Novartis AG & Anr. v. Natco Pharma Limited Judgment offers vital clarity on how courts approach subsequent pleadings in commercial patent suits. It affirms that while the 120-day limit is sacrosanct for the initial written statement, courts retain discretion under Order VIII Rule 9 to allow further pleadings, provided they stem from bona fide, material developments.

By granting Natco leave to file an additional written statement, the Delhi High Court reiterated the overarching duty to ensure that disputes are resolved on the basis of all pertinent facts. In doing so, the Court promoted the principles of fairness, transparency, and thoroughness, ensuring that the “real controversy” is placed squarely before the court. This Judgment is, therefore, significant not only for patent litigation but for any commercial case where subsequent events could influence the suit’s outcome.

In the wider context of commercial litigation, the ruling underscores the importance of continuing disclosure obligations under the CPC and demonstrates the courts’ willingness to allow fulsome pleadings when it is essential for rendering complete justice.