JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave granted.

THE APPEAL

2. The appellant¹[LMT] was approached by respondent²[SCB] for the purposes of developing and managing a mobile application, commonly known as an ‘app’. An IT Professional Services Agreement was entered into, to that effect on 19th February 2013. The process therefor was undertaken allegedly in earnest, and hours of laborious effort was put in, culminating in the app being launched across the Android and iOS systems. Shortly, thereafter, however, the SCB instructed LMT to take down the said app. This was the beginning of the dispute. Since the Agreement housed a revenue sharing clause, the latter alleged losses and set the legal process afoot by sending a legal notice dated 15th April 2015, asking SCB to pay Rs. 4,46,50,000 along with interest at 18% p.a. Such a claim was denied, leading to the filing of Civil Suit (OS) No.1705 of 2015 before the High Court of Delhi. Parties completed the pleadings by filing written statement(s) and replication thereto. Issues were framed on 16th November 2016. Thereafter, LMT filed an application seeking to place on record additional documents, which was allowed on 30th January 2018. On the same day, an order was passed renumbering the suit as CS(Comm.) 169 of 2018.

2.1 After some other proceedings, the evidence of one Sunil Jasuja who was examined as PW-1 was completed on 9th May 2023.

2.2 LMT sought to file another application being IA No. 24359 of 2023 to bring on record additional documents and recall PW-1 as a witness for examination. What was sought to be brought on record was (i) e-mails exchanged between LMT and SCB; (ii) the copy of the agreements entered into between the LMT and other vendors; and (iii) backend data stored in servers.

2.3 The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 12th February 2025 rejected this application, applying the ‘reasonable cause’ test, holding that there was no reason whatsoever, explained in any manner for the delay in filing this application. LMT slept over the documents and sought to produce the same, as mentioned in the application, to fill in the gaps in the evidence of PW-1. It was then concluded that allowing the application would be against the objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015³[CCA].

3. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appeared for LMT. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, and Mr. Ateev Mathur, learned counsel represented SCB. Heard. Perused and considered the written arguments of the parties.

4. What we are required to adjudicate is whether LMT’s prayer denied by the High Court is in accordance with law.

UNDERSTANDING THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT

5. Disputes of this nature, obviously civil, are governed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908⁴[CPC]. Various timelines have been mentioned therein for the procedure of civil suits. Section 34, CPC describes what a commercial suit is, saying as follows:

34… … … …

Explanation II.—For the purposes of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, if it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liability.]

6. The recognition that, in view of the changing landscape of business, the law must adapt, is more than two decades old now. Under the chairmanship of M. Jagannadha Rao J., a former Judge of this Court, the Law Commission, in 2003, back in 2003 vide its 188th Report, proposed the setting up of Commercial Divisions in the High Courts. Pursuant thereto, a bill by the name of Commercial Division of the High Court Bill, 2009 was introduced. In 2015, the Law Commission once again took up this issue and the 253rd Report under A.P Shah, CJ (Retd.), was presented in 2015, setting up the enactment of CCA.

7. We are now discussing the Scheme of CCA, which consists of 7 Chapters, 23 Sections and 1 Schedule. It is an Act providing for the constitution of commercial courts, commercial divisions and commercial appellate divisions in the High Courts specifically to deal with commercial disputes of specified value. A comme