Point of Law: Order XI Rule 1(4) and Order XI Rule 1(5) applicable to the commercial suit shall be applicable only with respect to the documents which were in plaintiff’s power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

Challenging the Orders, dated 05.08.2021 in I.A.No.53 of 2021 in C.O.S.No.17 of 2020; and in I.A.No.79 of 2021 in C.O.S.No.18 of 2020, dated 07.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, wherein the application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XI, Rule 1(5) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short, “C.P.C.”] as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to receive the documents for the purpose of marking them as exhibits, was dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

2. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts, which lead to filing of C.R.P.No.949 of 2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are as under:-

(i) The Revision Petitioner is the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner. The respondent herein filed a Claim Suit vide C.O.S.No.07 of 2020 against the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation [hereinafter referred to as “Revision Petitioner”]. The Revision Petitioner also filed a suit vide C.O.S.No.17 of 2020 against the respondent herein is seeking a direction to the defendant (a) to pay a sum of Rs.4,42,50,677.40 ps. Towards damages (b) to pay interest on the said amount at 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.

(ii) The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1182 of 2015 seeking permanent injunction against the Revision Petitioner and others with regard to inviting tenders for completion of the works under all the eight packages. In the said suit, I.A.No.1281 of 2015 came to be filed by the respondent herein for temporary injunction, restraining the Revision Petitioner, their agents and men from filing tenders as per its notification, dated 10.11.2015. After considering all the documents, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada dismissed the request of the respondent herein.

(iii) Challenging the same, the respondent herein preferred C.M.A.No.02 of 2016 before the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. After hearing all the concerned, the V Additional District Judge, dismissed the said C.M.A. on 04.04.2016. Challenging the same, the respondent herein preferred C.R.P.No.2386 of 2016 before the Hon’ble High Court, which was also dismissed vide order, dated 10.06.2016 confirming the order of the District Court.

Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner filed I.A.No.37 of 2021 in C.O.S.No.17 of 2020 before the Commercial Court to receive the documents. A memo was also filed on 07.07.2021, not pressing the said application and the same was dismissed as not pressed.

(iv) Thereafter, the Revision Petitioner filed an application for receiving the certified copies of the orders passed in O.S.No.1182 of 2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vijayawada and V Additional District Court, Vijayawada, along with the order copy in C.R.P.No.2386 of 2016 which was downloaded from e-Courts Services. It is said that as these documents are very much essential to the case, to resolve the claim.

4. A counter came to be filed stating that the Corporation filed the suit represented by its Commissioner and the verification was also done by the Commissioner of the Corporation, but strangely Chief Engineer filed an application without any authority. It is further pleaded in the counter that the plaintiff failed to give reasons and state as to when the certified copies were obtained and when the application was made to receive the said documents in C.O.S.No.18 of 2020.

(i) It is further pleaded in the counter that the earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn and without the leave of the Court to file no subsequent application for the same relief, can be entertained. It is further contended that under Order XI, Rule 1(5) of C.P.C., the petitioner could not be per