Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
ITI Limited - Appellant
Versus
Ishan Infotech Limited - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26230 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Decided on : 15-09-2025
ORDER :
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Heard Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ganapathy M.S., learned counsel appearing for the caveat/respondent.
2. The petitioner is before this court calling in question, an order of the concerned court dated 09.07.2025 in Commercial O.S.No.621/2024, by which the concerned court rejects the application filed by the petitioner under Order XI Rule 1(10) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('the CPC' for short) seeking production of several documents which could not be produced according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement.
3. The issue need not detain this court for long or delve deep into the matter, as this court in WP.No.23634/2025 disposed on 03.09.2025 has considered the entire spectrum of the Act and the law laid down by several High Courts and has held that if indulgence would be shown at the stage of permitting fragmented production of documents under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, it would defeat the object of constitution of the Commercial Court itself.
4. This court in WP.No.23634/2025 disposed on 03.09.2025 has held as follows:
"7. The fore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. However, the dates would require reiteration. They read as follows:
| Sl. No. | Dates | Events |
| 1. | 19-12-2024 | The respondent filed Commercial Original Suit No.307 of 2024 against the petitioner. |
| 2. | 15-02-2025 | Petitioner filed vakalathnama |
| 3. | 14-03-2025 | Petitioner filed written statement to the suit |
| 4. | 03-04-2025 | Petitioner filed statement of admissions and denials. |
| 5. | 05-06-2025 | Issues were framed and suit was posted for case management hearing. |
| 6. | 23-06-2025 | Mr. Sudhakar was examined as PW-1 on behalf of the plaintiff and got marked Ex.P1 to P36. |
| 7. | 03-07-2025 | PW-1 was cross-examined by the defendant |
| 8. | 15-07-2025 | Affidavit evidence of Mr. S.Krishna, Officer of the defendant was filed and he was examined as DW- 1. The petitioner filed application under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC seeking permission of the Court for production of documents in support of their defence evidence. The matter was posted for filing of objections by the plaintiff to the said application filed by the defendant. |
| 9. | 17-07-2025 | The Advocate for the plaintiff filed objections to the application filed by the defendant seeking permission to file the documents. Arguments on the application were heard from both sides and posted the matter for orders on I.A. filed under Order XI Rule 1 of CPC on 18-07-2024. |
A perusal at the dates would indicate that the application is preferred after examination and cross- examination of PW-1 and examination of DW-1. Whether this is permissible to be filed and necessary to be allowed is the core issue. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC. It 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, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including:
(a) Documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint;
(b) Documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiffs case;
(c) nothing in this rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only—
(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant's witnesses, or
(ii) in answer to any case setup by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or
(iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.
(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document, mode of exec
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
In commercial litigation, negligence or inadvertence does not constitute 'reasonable cause' for late document disclosure; strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandatory under the Commercial Co....
The court established that mere reference to documents in a written statement does not satisfy the requirement of 'reasonable cause' for late submission under the amended Civil Procedure Rules.
Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits document production to counter claims made by defendants, allowing flexibility in commercial suits.
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict disclosure obligations, requiring all documents to be submitted at the outset. Late submissions necessitate a clear justification for non-disclosure, which w....
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
The court allowed the production of documents not annexed to the plaint due to lack of coordination, establishing that reasonable cause for non-disclosure can be recognized under procedural rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
