IMPORTANT POINT
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 that this requirement does not apply if the documents were found subsequently and were not in the plaintiff's possession at the time of filing.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present application seeking leave to disclose some documents which were not disclosed with the plaint at the time of filing of the plaint. On receipt of writ of summons, the defendant entered appearance and had filed written statement. After filing of written statement, the plaintiff had sent an e-mail to the defendant for inspection of documents and in reply, the defendant had informed the plaintiff that the defendant will inspect the documents on reopening of the Court after Puja Vacation. By an e-mail dated 21st November, 2023, the defendant had informed the plaintiff that the defendant will inspect documents on 24th November, 2023 and in reply to the said e-mail, the plaintiff informed the defendant that the plaintiff will file an application for seeking leave to disclose further documents and after disposal of the application, the plaintiff will offer documents for inspection.

2. Mr. Subhashis Sengupta, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that at the time of preparation of list of documents which was to be offered to the defendant for inspection, the plaintiff has noticed that several documents were not filed along with plaint. He submits that few of the e-mails were annexed with the plaint but the documents mentioned in the said e-mails were not annexed with the plaint.

3. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the plaint was affirmed on 20th April, 2023 and the same was filed before this Court on 2nd May, 2023 and on the same day due to some urgent work, one of the Director had to leave for Germany and had returned to Kolkata on 12th May, 2023 due to which the documents could not be annexed with the plaint. He submits that the documents were referred in the pleadings but the same were not annexed with the plaint.

4. Mr. Sengupta submitted that the plaintiff has handed over the documents to its staff for transmitting to the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff but due to inadvertence, the same was not handed over to the Learned Advocate due to which the same could not be incorporated. He submits that, the documents which the plaintiff is intending to disclose, the said documents are necessary for proper adjudication of the suit.

5. Per contra, Mr. Soumendra Nath Ganguly, Learned Counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has filed the plaint supported by verification and “Statement of Truth” as applicable to the commercial suits and declared on oath that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the suit have been disclosed and copies thereof are annexed with the plaint and the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody and thus at this stage, the plaintiff shall not be allowed to disclose additional documents.

6. Mr. Ganguly submitted that it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the documents which the plaintiff is intending to disclose at this stage of the suit, were in possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing of the suit. He submits that the documents which the plaintiff intends to disclose are about 700 pages and thus it is impossible to believe that the plaintiff has handed over the documents to one of his employee to transmit the same and due to inadvertence, the same could not be transmitted to the Learned Advocate.

7. Mr. Ganguly submits that in one hand the plaintiff has made out a case that the documents were referred in the plaint but has not annexed as the said documents were not transmitted to the Learned Advocate and on the other hand, the plaintiff had made out a case that few e-mails were annexed but the documents were not annexed. He submits that the averments made by the plaintiff are vague.

8. Mr. Ganguly submitted that Order XI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as applicable to the Commercial Suits brought about radical changes and it mandates the plaintiff to file a list of all documents,