Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.

ORDER :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri A.S.C.Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Umar Abdullah, learned counsel, representing Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for respondent No.1-IDMC Limited, Gujarat, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Executive Director and the Assistant Manager representing of respondent No.1.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are inter-related, arising out of the Common Order, dated 05.12.2023. So, are being disposed of by this Common Order.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in C.O.S.No.10 of 2022 (‘COS’) on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam (‘the Special Judge’). The respondents are the defendants in COS.

4. The petitioner initially instituted O.S.No.9 of 2017 (‘OS’) on the file of the Court of the XIII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Later, it was transferred to the Court of the Special Judge and renumbered as C.O.S.10 of 2022. The COS is for a decree against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,23,89,667.60 ps., (Rupees one crore twenty three lakhs eighty nine thousand six hundred and sixty seven and sixty paisa) with subsequent interest @24 % per annum from the date of the suit till the date of realization with some other consequential reliefs.

5. The plaintiff/petitioner filed I.A.No.450 of 2023 under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’) as applicable to the Commercial Courts Act,2015, to receive thirty (30) documents. I.A.No.448 of 2023 was filed to re-open the evidence on the plaintiff’s side for filing and marking of those 30 documents, and I.A.No.449 of 2023 was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall P.W.1 for filing and marking of those documents.

6. The defendants/respondents opposed the applications. They filed I.A.No.448 of 2023, denying the material allegations and requested to reject the petitioner’s I.As., as misconceived and vexatious being on false and flimsy grounds and not as per the law and the procedure.

7. The learned Special Judge, by common order, dated05.12.2023, dismissed all the three I.As. Challenging the common order, C.R.P.Nos.524, 591 and 638 of 2024 have been filed.

8. From the reading of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, it follows that the grounds for rejection of I.A.No.450 of 2023 are as under :

(1) that previously I.A.No.123 of 2023 was filed, which was allowed to receive 34 documents and out of those documents, Exs.A1 to A15, A18, A23 to A25 are the copies of the same documents, included in the 30 documents, the original documents, but the reason was not assigned for seeking reception of the original documents.

(2) that the ground of shifting was common in both the applications. In the first application, the plaintiff was under the impression that he had already filed those documents, whereas, in the later application, he presumed that 30 documents were lost, while shifting his office, and were found recently.

(3) In the notice memo, dated 13.09.2023, by which the plaintiff sought directions to the defendants to produce Form-16A for the financial years 2011-12 to 2012-13. He did not mention about most of the other documents further produced by the defendants, and he ought to have sought the production of those documents through the aforesaid notice.

(4) There was no plea that the documents now sought to be produced were not in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit or at least till the filing of I.A.No.450 of 2023.

9. Previously, the petitioner had filed I.A.123 of 2023 to receive 34 documents, and I.A.No.122 of 2023 to recall P.W.1 for marking those documents, which were allowed on 01.05.2023. Those documents were marked as Exs.A27 to A60 on 03.05.2023.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the process of the shifting of the petitioner’s office, the original records were not found, and were presumed to b