Detailed and specific requirements for filing documents in a commercial suit, the heavy onus on the plaintiff to prepare a detailed list of documents and make a declaration on oath, and the need to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

IA No. 12490/2019 (of plaintiff u/O XI R-5 CPC)

1. The plaintiff in this commercial suit, after framing of issues on 9th October, 2017 and after commencement of the recording of evidence, seeks leave to file additional documents.

2. The counsel for the defendant appears on advance notice and considering the nature of the application, need for a reply is not felt.

3. The counsels have been heard.

4. The plaintiff, in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the application, has pleaded as under:-

"3. It is stated that the pleadings are complete in the present proceedings and the matter is listed for cross examination of PW-1. It is pertinent to note that the documents filed by the Plaintiff along with its pleadings includes, but are not limited to, assignment agreements executed by and between the plaintiff or its predecessors-in-interest with the producers/ production houses or their successors-in-interest. It is humbly submitted that in view of the age of such documents, two assignment agreements were left out from the list of documents filed along with the present plaint in lieu of which one other agreement with the same party was placed on record erroneously.

4. It is stated that considering the nature of such inadvertent error, the plaintiff is moving the present Application and seeks liberty of this Hon'ble Court to place on record the following documents along with the Additional Evidence by way of Affidavit:

(a) Agreement dated 02.04.1995 between M/s Bombay Finvest Enterprises and M/s Essel Vision for the assignment of Negative and other rights of movie "Dil Ka Heera" may be marked in the Additional Evidence Affidavit as Exhibit PW1/19.

(b) Agreement dated 02.04.1995 between M/s Bombay Finvest Enterprises and M/s Essel Vision for the assignment of Negative and other rights of movie "Sacchai" may be marked in the additional Evidence Affidavit as Exhibit PW1/20."

5. The senior counsel for the plaintiff has argued, (i) that the plaintiff has instituted this suit to restrain the defendant from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in 29 cinematograph films named in paragraph 18 of the plaint; (ii) that the plaintiff, in paragraph 19 of the plaint has disclosed the agreements vide which the copyright in the said films stood assigned to the plaintiff or its predecessor-in-interest M/s Essel Vision; (iii) that the plaintiff, while filing the agreements of assignment of copyright in each films, filed wrong agreements with respect to two of the films namely "Dil Ka Heera" and "Sacchai" and is now seeking to file the correct assignment agreements with respect to the subject films and (iv) that it is the case of inadvertence simplicitor. Reliance is placed on Nitin Gupta vs. Texmaco Infrastructure and Holding Ltd. 2019 SCC Online Del 8367 and Sadhu Forging Ltd. vs. Continental Engines Ltd. 2017 SCC Online Del 10039.

6. However, Sadhu Forging Ltd. supra pertains to ordinary suits as distinct from a "commercial suit" within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and would thus have no application to the controversy in hand.

7. The senior counsel for the plaintiff, with reference to Nitin Gupta supra has contended that this Court has carved out a difference between nondisclosure of documents and non-filing of documents; this is a case of non-filing or inadvertent filing, the plaintiff having disclosed the assignment agreements in its favour in paragraph 19 of the plaint.

8. The counsel for the defendant, on enquiry, whether has any objection to the application, has handed over a list of dates and on the basis thereof opposed the application, contending (i) that the suit was filed as a commercial suit, claiming urgent relief and came up before this Court unaccompanied with any application under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to the commercial suits, on 23rd December, 2016, when, while dealing with the application of the plaintiff for interim relief, a condition was imposed on the defendant to deposit a sum of