Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Md. Islamuddin - Appellant
Versus
S S Kapoor - Respondent
CM(M) 1137 of 2022 & CM Appl. 45868 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2022
Additional Documents - Commercial Suit - Order VII Rule 14 CPC, Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC, Commercial Courts Act - The court discussed the application of Order VII Rule 14 CPC in a commercial suit and the relevance of Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. It highlighted the requirement for the plaintiff to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents and the liberal construction of the term 'reasonable cause'. The court also emphasized the lenient view to be adopted while considering applications for additional documents, as established in relevant case laws. The judgment focused on the distinction between examining the sufficiency of cause for non-disclosure and the genuineness of the documents, emphasizing that the court's role is limited to determining the existence of sufficient cause for not filing the documents with the plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to place additional documents on record in a commercial suit, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for not filing the documents with the plaint. The respondent challenged the veracity and genuineness of the documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the application of the petitioner, though filed under the wrong provision, was entitled to be treated as an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. It emphasized the requirement for the plaintiff to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents and the need for a liberal construction of the term 'reasonable cause'. The court adopted a lenient view while considering the application for additional documents, allowing the documents to be placed on record in the interests of justice.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the sufficiency of cause for not filing the additional documents with the plaint and the relevance of the COVID-19 pandemic as a valid reason for non-disclosure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, relevant case laws emphasizing a lenient view for additional documents, and the distinction between examining the sufficiency of cause for non-disclosure and the genuineness of the documents.
Final Decision: The court allowed the documents to be placed on record, subject to costs to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents. It also granted the respondent the opportunity to file an additional or amended written statement to meet the additional documents.
JUDGMENT
1. The order dated 26th September 2022, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts) in CS (Comm) 218/2021 (Md. Islamuddin v. S S Kapoor) under challenge in the present petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rejects an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), seeking to place certain documents on record in addition to those filed by the petitioner as the plaintiff. The documents were carbon copies of three invoices dated 9th June 2018, 27th July 2018 and 30th December 2018, and one hand written document dated 4th January 2018 allegedly executed by the respondent-defendant containing what, according to the petitioner, amounted to the admission of liability on the respondents' part.
2. The respondent challenged the veracity and genuineness of the said documents.
3. The plaint, in the suit instituted by the petitioner against the respondent was filed in January 2021 and documents were filed along with the plaint. Written statement was filed by the defendant, issues were framed and recording of evidence commenced. At the stage of cross-examination of DW-1 the petitioner moved the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC in which the impugned order has come to be passed.
4. At the outset, it may be noted that the application of the petitioner ought not to have filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC as the application was filed in a commercial suit. An application for additional documents, filed beyond 30 days of institution of a commercial suit, is required to be filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, has held that an application for additional documents filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, though filed under the wrong provision, is entitled to be treated as an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. As such, the objection, in the impugned order of the learned Commercial Court, to that effect, has no substance.
5. Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act reads as under:
'(5) 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 plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint.'
6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. v. Bank of India 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10647, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Madanlal v. Shyamlal 2002 (1) SCC 535, has held that the words 'reasonable cause' employed in Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as requiring a liberal construction, with the latitude of the expression being wider than the expression 'good cause' which, in turn, is wider than the expression 'sufficient cause'.
7. The application filed by the petitioner is short, and the relevant passages thereof may be reproduced thus:
'1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is pending before this Hon'ble Court and fixed for evidence on 02.09.2022.
2. That the present case is prepared and filed during the COVID-19 pandemic and due to such situation the counsel for the plaintiff had not met the plaintiff at the time of preparation of the Petition, therefore only some of the documents were supplied and filed as the remaining documents was not available with the Plaintiff at that time.
3. That the documents were with the staff of the Plaintiff who had been looking after the business of the Plaintiff and only at the time of evidence of plaintiff it was noticed that at the time of filing of the suit, some of th
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents and the court's role in determining the sufficiency....
The court emphasized a liberal interpretation of procedural rules allowing additional documents to be admitted if reasonable cause is shown, particularly in extraordinary situations like a pandemic.
The court established that non-filing of documents due to negligence does not constitute reasonable cause for allowing additional evidence under the CPC.
Compliance with procedural rules under Order XI of the CPC is mandatory for plaintiffs in commercial suits; failure to justify late document submissions results in dismissal of related applications.
The admissibility of additional documents and the allowance of such documents in civil suits and criminal proceedings.
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....
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
