Applications to recall witnesses or introduce late documents under Order XVIII Rule 17 or Order XI Rule 1(10) CPC cannot be granted at a belated stage to fill evidentiary gaps if no reasonable cause for non-disclosure is established, especially given the mandate for expeditious disposal in commercial litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri C. V. R. Rudra Prasad, assisted by Sri Pavan Kumar M, learned counsel for the petitioners in all three civil revision petitions.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in C.O.S.No.10 of 2022, pending in the Court of the Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of the Commercial Disputes, at Visakhapatnam (in short ‘the Special Judge’).

3. The plaintiff/respondent originally filed O.S.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIII Additional District Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, which was later on transferred to the Court of the Special Judge and re-numbered as COS.No.10 of 2022. The suit is for recovery of an amount with subsequent interest and costs. In the said suit, the defendants/petitioners filed I.A.No.268 of 2025 for the purpose of receiving document and cross examination of PW 1; I.A.No.269 of 2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) to recall PW 1 for further cross examination, and I.A.No.270 of 2025 under Order XI Rule 1 (10) CPC, as applicable to the Commercial Courts, to receive the legal notice dated 29.06.2012 issued by the plaintiff under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as documentary evidence. All the three aforesaid I.As have been dismissed with costs by the learned Special Judge, vide Orders of the same date 14.11.2025, but passed separately on each application.

4. Challenging the said Orders dated 14.11.2025 in I.A.No.268 of 2025, CRP No.3779 of 2025; in I.A.No.269 of 2025, CRP No.3774 of 2025 and in I.A.No.270 of 2025, CRP No.3778 of 2025 have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. As the issue involved is almost common, as the prayer made in all applications is related, we proceed to decide all the civil revision petitions by the common judgment.

6. In I.A.No.268 of 2025 the learned Special Judge framed the following points for consideration:

“(1) Whether the petitioners’ side evidence can be reopened for further cross examination of PW 1?

(2) To what relief?”

7. The learned Special Judge held that the suit stands posted for filing of written arguments and at that belated stage, the application could not be allowed when the document sought to be produced vide I.A.No.268 of 2025 was in possession of the petitioners all along.

8. In I.A.No.269 of 2025 the learned Special Judge framed the following points for determination:

“(1) Whether PW 1 can be recalled for further cross examination?

(2) To what relief?”

9. The learned Special Judge recorded the same reason that at the belated stage when the suit was posted for filing of written arguments and the said document was undisputedly in the possession of the petitioners all along, the suit could not be reopened to recall PW 1 for cross examination.

10. In I.A.No.270 of 2025 the learned Special Judge framed the following points for determination:

“(1) Whether the legal notice dated 29.06.2012 can be received as an evidence on behalf of petitioners/defendants?

(2) To what relief?”

11. The learned Special Judge held that the legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act dated 29.06.2012 was undisputedly in possession of the petitioners all along. The learned Special Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioners/defendants that the said document could be traced only recently and such reason assigned did not inspire confidence to the learned Special Judge. Observing that the object of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 is expeditious disposal of the commercial disputes and in view of the express bar in the Order 11 Rule 1 (10) CPC as amended in its application by the Commercial Courts Act, the defendants/petitioners could not be permitted to file a document at that stage which was all along in their power and possession.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the rejection of the petitioners’ applications by the Orders impugned in the civil revision petitions cannot be sustained. He submitted that in th