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 Courts Act.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/defendant-IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’ for short) is at the doors of this Court, calling in question an order dated 22-07-2025 passed by the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru in Commercial O.S.No.307 of 2024 rejecting an application- I.A.No.III filed by the defendant under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, whereby leave was sought to bring forth documents belatedly into the evidentiary fold.

2. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The respondent is the plaintiff and the petitioner is the defendant. The plaintiff institutes a commercial suit in Com.O.S.No.307 of 2024 seeking the following prayer:

“(a) Direct the defendant to admit the plaintiff’s claim under Claim No.11026939 and pay the claim amount of ₹3,70,68,580/- to the plaintiff in terms of the IFFCO-TOKIO Bharat SookshmaUdyam Suraksha Policy bearing No.12343946 issued to the plaintiff by the defendant, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the claim intimation till the date of payment.”

The issue in the lis does not pertain to the merit of the matter. The defendant enters appearance and files the written statement on 14-03-2025. The defendant, after filing of the written statement, also filed statement of admissions and denials, after which, the concerned Court on 5-06-2025 framed issues and posted for case management hearing. On 23-06-2025 PW-1 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff and 36 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P36. On 3-07-2025 PW-1 was cross-examined by the defendant. On 15-07-2025 after completion of examination and cross- examination, affidavit evidence of the officer/DW-1 of the defendant was taken and he was examined. After his examination, an application comes to be filed under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC seeking permission of the Court for production of documents in support of defence evidence. This was objected to by the plaintiff. The concerned Court, by its order dated 22-07-2025, rejects the application and posts the matter for evidence of the defendant. The defendant then rushes to this Court calling in question the said order rejecting the application under Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC.

3. Heard Sri S.Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri I.S. Devaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ defendant would submit that the application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC ought to have been permitted, as the documents that the petitioner wanted to produce were imperative, as it would be in counter to the evidence let in by the plaintiff. He would contend that no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff, if the documents proposed to be produced are brought on record. The documents were concerning certain policies that were issued in the year 2017-18 and they were not placed on record out of inadvertence. He would, therefore, submit that the petition should be allowed and consequently the application so filed.

5. On the converse, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that law requires that all the documents be placed before the Court by the defendant at the time of filing of the written statement or statement of admissions and denial. Fragmented production of documents would truncate the mandate of the law. Therefore, he would submit that the petition be dismissed. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondent have placed reliance upon several judgments, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order.

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 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: