Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Khurmi Associates (p) Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Maharishi Dayanand Co-operative Group Housing Society - Respondent
Civil Suit (COMM) No. 281 of 2020, CC (COMM) No. 10 of 2020, I.A. No. 6175 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2022
Additional Document - Application under Section 151 of CPC - Order XI Rule 1 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which requires the plaintiff to file all documents in its power, possession, control, or custody with the plaint. The court also considered the requirement to establish 'reasonable cause' for non-disclosure of documents along with the pleadings. The judgment in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. (supra) and Mahesh Chaudhri (supra) was referred to, which distinguished the case from Nitin Gupta (supra) based on the stage of the suit, authenticity of documents, and consistency with pleadings.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff Company filed an application under Section 151 of CPC seeking to place on record an additional document, which was not filed with the replication due to the prevailing circumstances owing to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application and permitted the plaintiff Company to place the additional document on record, subject to the payment of costs to the defendant Society.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of filing the additional document, the reasons for non-disclosure with the replication, and the relevance of the document to the pleadings of the plaintiff Company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Order XI Rule 1 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the judgments in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. (supra) and Mahesh Chaudhri (supra) to establish the requirement of 'reasonable cause' for non-disclosure of documents along with the pleadings.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, and the plaintiff Company was permitted to place the additional document on record, subject to the payment of costs to the defendant Society.
JUDGMENT
amit Bansal, J. - I.a. No. 2048/2021 (seeking leave to file an additional document with replication)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff Company under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to place on record, the additional document filed, along with copy thereof.
2. The document in question is the register maintained by the plaintiff Company, which as per the plaintiff Company, maintains records of the documents handed over by the plaintiff Company to the defendant Society.
3. It is submitted by the senior counsel for the plaintiff Company that the additional document was to be filed together with the replication and reply to the defendant Society's counter-claim on 3rd February, 2021, however, as typed copies of the same could not be arranged at the time due to the prevailing circumstances owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, the additional document was filed together with the present application three working days later, on 8th February, 2021.
4. It is an admitted position that issues are yet to be framed in the present suit. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiff Company has stated in his pleadings that the aforesaid drawings having been supplied by the plaintiff Company to the defendant Society and the document, now sought to be placed on record, is just an additional document in support of the aforesaid pleadings. It is also an admitted position that the aforesaid document is not contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiff Company. Though the aforesaid documents should have been filed with the replication filed by the plaintiff Company, but on account of inadvertence, the aforesaid document could not be filed with the replication and the same was filed three working days after the replication was filed.
5. The counsel for the non-applicant/defendant Society submits that no reasons have been given by the plaintiff Company in the present application as to why the aforesaid document could not have been filed along with the replication. Reliance is placed on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nitin Gupta Vs. Texmaco Infrastructure & Holding Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8367.
6. The senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff Company has sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment from the facts of the present case and places reliance on the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. & anr. Vs. Bank of India & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10647 and Mahesh Chaudhri & anr. Vs. IMV India Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9813, where the aforesaid judgment in Nitin Gupta (supra) has been considered by the respective Co-ordinate Benches.
7. Having heard the counsels for the parties, in my view, the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. (supra). The relevant observations in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. (supra) are set out below:
'13. Perusal of Order XI as noted above reveals that the plaintiff is bound to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody with the plaint and in case of urgent filing of a suit if some additional documents are to be filed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order XI, the plaintiff may seek leave of the Court to rely on additional documents which additional documents are required to be filed within 30 days of filing of the suit. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order XI, the plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with the plaint or within the extended period save and except by leave of the Court which leave can be granted only if the plaintiff establishes reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint. The language used in the sub-rule (5) is that the plaintiff is required to show 'a reasonable cause' and not a 'sufficient cause' as is ordinarily provided in other provisions.
14. While dealing with Order XIII Rul
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to establish 'reasonable cause' for non-disclosure of documents along with the pleadings, as per the provision....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that under Order XI Rule 5 of the CPC, additional documents may be permitted to be filed if they are relevant for the adjudication of the case and ....
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.
The court emphasized the strict adherence to document filing rules in commercial disputes, denying late submission of documents without establishing reasonable cause for prior non-disclosure.
Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.
The court emphasized that the necessity of additional issues for just adjudication should not be dismissed solely based on delay.
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....
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
