1. These notices of motion are for identical reliefs in two separate suits and both suits have been tagged together because the plaintiff in both suits are sole proprietory concern of two brothers who are carrying on business together from the same premises and defendants are also common. The cause of action also is identical. The documents proposed to be introduced in evidence through these notices of motion are also common. The affidavits in support are also identical except that they are affirmed by two different persons, viz., Ashish Khialani in notice of motion No. 2269 of 2015 and Pratap Khialani in notice of motion No. 2268 of 2015. Therefore, I am considering the facts in notice of motion No.2269 of 2015 in Admiralty Suit No. 31 of 2015 and my findings will apply squarely to notice of motion No. 2268 of 2015 in Admiralty Suit No.11 of 2013 converted into Commercial Suit No. 31 of 2013 also.

2. The suit has been filed on the basis that plaintiff was a ship chandler and supplied various goods/necessaries and rendered services to 1st defendant vessel and there are amounts still unpaid.

3. After the issues were settled on 14th March 2014, plaintiff filed evidence of their first witness. As recorded in the order dated 16th April 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that there will be two witnesses. The first witness was Mr.Ashish Khialani in Admiralty Suit No.31 of 2013 and Mr. Pratap Khialani in Commercial Suit No.13 of 2013 as PW1 and the 2nd witness in both the suits will be one Mr. Mohnish Mackdani. With the evidence of PW1 in Admiralty Suit No.31 of 2013, plaintiff had filed a compilation of about 147 documents and in Commercial Suit No.31 of 2013, plaintiff had filed a compilation in two volumes containing a total of about 900 pages. Plaintiff thereafter on 12th August 2014 sought liberty of the Court to withdraw the affidavit of evidence of Ashish Khialani (PW1) filed in Admiralty Suit No.31 of 2013 because the averments did not include averments regarding various documents and invoices. In the interest of justice, this Court permitted plaintiff to withdraw the affidavit of evidence of Mr.Ashish Khialani and granted liberty to file fresh evidence affidavit. Therefore, fresh evidence affidavit was filed of Mr.Ashish Khialani in Admiralty Suit No. 31 of 2013. On 31st October 2014, the 147 documents were received in evidence and marked as exhibits in Admiralty Suit No.31 of 2013 and on 7th May 2014, the 900 (approx.) pages were received in evidence and marked as exhibits in Commercial Suit No.31 of 2013.

4. The evidence of Mr.Ashish Khialani and Mr.Pratap Khialani, who were PW1 in Admiralty Suit No. 31 of 2013 and Commercial Suit No.31 of 2013, respectively, was recorded before the Court appointed Commissioner and the cross-examination of PW1 in both suits was concluded on 5th September 2015 and the witnesses were discharged. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff filed the affidavit of one Mr.Mohnish Mackdani in lieu of examination in chief in both the suits on 26th October 2015. At that stage, it is the case of plaintiff that they realized that there are approximately 22 documents which have not been even referred to in the affidavit of documents and consequently as they have not been received in evidence, are required to be brought through Mr.Mohnish Mackdani, proposed PW2. Hence, are seeking leave of this Court to file further affidavit of documents.

5. Admittedly, these documents have not even been referred to in plaint. There is not even a foundation laid in the plaint. In the affidavit in support of the notices of motion, it is stated that the documents that are required to be filed are computer print out of email correspondence exchanged between the representative/proprietor of plaintiff and representative/agent of defendants; the documents are integral part of the correspondence exchanged between the parties; defendants had admitted to clear the outstanding due to plaintiff and had failed to do so; these documents w