Order VIII Rule 10 requires judicial scrutiny before decree, despite deemed admissions.

The plaintiff, a provider of competitive-examination coaching, claimed common-law rights in the mark “CAREER POWER” and its device, and copyright in the artistic and literary work comprising the device.

It alleged that defendants 2 and 4 had used the mark and the name “METIS EDUVANTURES” under franchise and brand-licensing arrangements that expired on 31 March 2021, but continued the use thereafter.

The plaintiff sought permanent injunctions and ancillary reliefs; it later gave up its claims for damages and costs and pursued injunctions alone.

Defendants 2 and 4 were proceeded against ex parte and filed no written statements.

Defendants 1 and 3 had already consented to a decree in terms of the same injunction prayers.

The plaintiff sought judgment against defendants 2 and 4 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

Whether, in a commercial suit where defendants 2 and 4 failed to file written statements within the prescribed period, the Court could decide the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC without directing the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence.

Whether the uncontroverted pleadings and documents established the plaintiff’s entitlement to permanent injunctions against defendants 2 and 4.

Under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, a defendant’s right to file a written statement is forfeited after 120 days from service; Order VIII Rules 5(2) and 10 permit judgment or another appropriate order where no written statement is filed, but do not require the Court to decree the suit mechanically.

SCG Contracts (India) (P) Ltd. v. K.S. Chamankar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. confirms the 120-day outer limit.

Under Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan and C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda, the Court must assess whether the admitted or uncontroverted facts support judgment and may require proof if material facts remain unresolved.

Nirog Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta similarly requires scrutiny of the plaint and documents before invoking Rule 10.

The Court also relied on Order XI Rule 4 CPC for the deemed admission of documents where no affidavit of admission and denial was filed.

The Court also relied on Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates (P) Ltd. for the proposition that ex parte evidence may be unnecessary where the plaintiff seeks injunction alone and the verified plaint and supporting material suffice.

Defendants 2 and 4 had been served, did not file written statements, and their time to do so had expired; their right to file was therefore forfeited.

The Court nevertheless applied the required scrutiny under Order VIII Rules 5(2) and 10 rather than treating non-appearance as an automatic admission.

No contesting defence remained: defendants 1 and 3 had consented to a decree in the same terms, and no defendant had put forward a version requiring trial.

The verified plaint and supporting documents were uncontroverted, with no affidavits of admission and denial from defendants 2 and 4.

The Court found that the material facts required no further proof and that ex parte evidence would merely repeat the verified pleadings.

It also considered that compliance with the interim injunction did not assure that the impugned use would not resume once that order ceased to operate.

Defendants 2 and 4 and those acting on their behalf were restrained from using the “CAREER POWER” mark or a deceptively similar mark so as to pass off their services as the plaintiff’s, from using “METIS EDUVANTURES” or a deceptively similar name to pass off their business, and from engaging in the pleaded unfair competition, dilution, tarnishment, and copyright infringement.

The decree previously passed against defendants 1 and 3 was to continue in its own terms; the suit and pending applications were disposed of.