Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Smt. Nioti Chanda - Plaintiff
Versus
SPML Infra Limited - Defendant
IA No. GA 7 of 2023 In CS 86 of 2018
Decided On : 18-08-2023
DOCUMENT DISCLOSURE - COMMERCIAL SUIT - ORDER XI, RULE 1(1), (4) AND (5) CPC - WORK ORDERS AND RENT AGREEMENT - ADMISSIBILITY - REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-DISCLOSURE - URGENT FILING - LIMITATION PERIOD - COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant, alleging that the defendant had not paid for the work orders and rent agreement related to the manufacturing of BPL Kits. The plaintiff sought to tender the work orders and rent agreement in the affidavit in chief and to be marked as exhibits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the plaintiff had not shown any reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint, and that the documents could not be admitted in evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had shown reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint. 2. Whether the documents could be admitted in evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had not shown any reasonable cause for non-disclosure of the documents along with the plaint. The court relied on Order XI, Rule 1(1), (4) and (5) CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires plaintiffs to file a list of all documents in their power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint. The court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar alias S. Baliyan -vs- Vinay Kumar G.B., (2021) 13 SCC 71, which held that the plaintiff must establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents along with the plaint.
Final Decision: The court rejected the plaintiff's application to tender the work orders and rent agreement in the affidavit in chief and to be marked as exhibits.
JUDGMENT :
(Krishna Rao, J.) :
1. The plaintiff has filed the present application being G.A No. 7 of 2023 praying for leave to allow the plaintiff to tender the work orders and rent agreement in the affidavit in chief and to be marked as exhibits.
2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 42,59,680/-along with interest. The plaintiff says that in the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded about the various work orders for the manufacturing/fabrication of BPL Kits that were given by the defendant to the plaintiff on the basis of which the plaintiff has manufactured /fabricated the BPL Kits and the details of the said work orders prepared by the plaintiff and the list has been annexed with the plaint.
3. The plaintiff further contended that the said work orders are old documents and the plaintiff requires some time to arrange the said documents but the plaintiff did not wait for arranging all those work orders since that would affect the limitation period for filing of suit. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the suit without annexing the said documents.
4. The plaintiff contended that in the pleading, the plaintiff has pleaded that the said work orders and detailed chart of the work orders are also annexed with the plaint.
5. The plaintiff further contended that in the plaint, the plaintiff has also pleaded that a godown was taken on rent by the plaintiff in the year 2014, for keeping the BPL Kits manufactured/ fabricated for supply of the same to the defendant but the suit was filed hurriedly to save the limitation period due to which the plaintiff could not annexed the said agreement with the plaint at the time of filing of the suit
6. The plaintiff submits that the said documents are necessary for the purpose of adjudication of the suit and if this Court will not allow the plaintiff to bring the said document in evidence, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
7. Per contra, the defendant says that the plaintiff has filed the suit in the month of May’ 2018 and there is no prayer for any urgent relief. As per the averments made in the plaint that on 24th August, 2017, the defendant has evinced an intention not to honour its obligation and thus there is no hurry to file the suit as there was enough time with the plaintiff to file the suit and question of limitation does not arise.
8. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had the knowledge that she has not filed the document along with plaint, as per Order XI, Rule 1(4) the plaintiff ought to have filed the application within 30 days from filing of the suit but the plaintiff has filed the present application after the period of five years.
9. The defendant further contended that it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the documents were in possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not disclosed the said documents within thirty days and in the present application, no reasonable cause has been shown why the plaintiff has not disclosed the documents and thus the application filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
10. The defendant relied upon the judgment reported in 2022 SCC Online Del 3089 (Anita Chhabra and Others -vs-Surender Kumar) and submitted that in commercial suits, the time periods and other formalities stipulated in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 are binding and required to be strictly followed. The defendant submitted that the additional documents in the present case having not been filed with the plaint as required under Order XI, Rule 1(1), the plaint having not been filed as an “urgent filing” as envisaged by Order XI Rule 1(4) and no sufficient cause for not filing the documents with the plaint within the meaning of Order XI, Rule 1(5) having been adduced by the plaintiff.
11. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties, perused the materials on record and the judgment relied by the defendant. Order XI, Rule 1(1), (4) and (5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 20
In commercial suits, plaintiffs must disclose all documents in their power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, and must show reasonable cause for non-discl....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing, as per Order XI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and clarifies....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to disclose all documents in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the Suit, along with the pl....
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....
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.
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 emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
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
