Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits document production to counter claims made by defendants, allowing flexibility in commercial suits.

ORDER :

(M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.)

The petitioner/defendant in Commercial Original Suit No.835 of 2023 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 05-02-2025 passed by the LXXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff seeking to produce documents under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC.

2. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri C.K. Nandakumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner is the defendant and the respondents are plaintiffs 1 and 2. The plaintiffs institute a suit in Commercial O.S.No.835 of 2023 for eviction and delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The issue in the lis does not pertain to merit of the matter before the concerned Court. The defendant files its written statement on 06-11-2023 denying all the plaint averments without any counter claim. On 18-07-2024 issues are framed by the concerned Court. On 02-08-2024 the plaintiffs lead evidence of PW-1 and on 15-10-2024, PW-1 is fully cross-examined. At that stage, the plaintiffs file I.A.No.III invoking Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking leave of the concerned Court to produce four documents. The concerned Court, by its order dated 05-02-2025, permits production of documents by allowing the application. The petitioner/defendant is before this Court challenging the said order, on the score that the documents could not have been permitted to be produced at that stage of the proceedings.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Ajesh Kumar S would vehemently contend that the plaintiffs are trying to set up a new case and cover the shortcoming in the evidence led thus far. He would contend that the concerned Court has erroneously held that the documents are produced in order to counter the assertions made by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement and would submit that, that cannot be the scope of Order XI Rule 1 of CPC. The order so passed allowing the application runs counter to the spirit of Commercial Courts Act, as it clearly bars production of documents at a later stage. He would seek that the petition be allowed and the order be set aside.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri C.K.Nandakumar appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs would vehemently refute the submissions contending that Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits such an exercise made by the plaintiffs. It is only to counter the defence put up by the defendant, the documents are sought to be marked. What are the documents that are marked and their veracity could be tested only in the evidence. He would contend that there is no perversity in the order passed by the concerned Court, for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. The issue in the lis lies in a narrow compass with regard to tenability of the order passed by the concerned Court. The dispute between the two leads the plaintiffs to file a commercial suit for eviction of the tenant, the petitioner. After cross-examination of PW-1, the plaintiffs prefer an application under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC. Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC reads as follows:

“1. Disclosure and discovery of documents. -

(1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody,