JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. By this order I shall decide two applications (I.As. 11113/2022 and 17718/2022) filed by the applicants, who are the plaintiffs in the present Suit. The applications are for seeking permission to bring the Additional Documents on record and seeking leave to file Additional Affidavit, under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC., for short).

I.A. 11113/2022

2. The plaintiff No.1, M/s CEC-CICI JV/applicant, is a joint venture between plaintiff No.2, M/s CEC International Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 and plaintiff No.3, the Continental Engineering Corporation, Taiwan, a company duly incorporated under the laws of Taiwan.

3. The defendant is a government owned Insurance Company namely "Oriental Insurance Company Limited", bound by the Rules and Regulations issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India ("IRDAI") as well as the Insurance Act, 1938.

4. The plaintiff No.1 was engaged in design and construction of Metro Rail in Delhi and was awarded a contract for design and construction of the underground metro work on the Mukundpur - Yamuna Vihar corridor of the Delhi MRTS Project of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC).

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that while carrying out such work for DMRC, some complaints were received by Plaintiffs from certain residents/occupiers that their buildings have been damaged due to the tunnelling work, which required imminent repair. Notice in terms of insurance policy was given to the defendant/insurance company, who appointed a surveyor, and the surveyor inspected the site where such damage had taken place. Pursuant to this, correspondence ensued with the surveyor as well as with the defendant/insurance company. The surveyor agreed that immediate repairs would be necessary to prevent further damage, which may be even life threatening.

6. Thereafter, repairs were completed. Claim was lodged with the Defendant/Insurance Company in terms of the insurance policy for approximately Rs.5.50 crores. However, the Defendant/Insurance Company, vide its letter dated May 14, 2019 rejected the claim on the ground that the Defendant/Insurance Company had not provided any written consent for carrying out the repairs in terms of the policy.

7. In the present suit, Plaintiff No. 1 seeks to recover a sum of Rs.5,50,17,761.18/-, along with interest pendent-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% from 15 May 2019. The amount of Rs.5,50,17,761.18/- represents the claim raised by plaintiff No. 1 upon the defendant under the Contractor's All Risk policy, which has been wrongfully rejected by the defendant.

8. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they seeks to rely upon the contents of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the documents could not be filed earlier due to logistical difficulties in collating, handling and sharing the documents, which got further aggravated by the COVID-19 and for a substantial duration of time, the offices of the counsel of the plaintiffs/applicants were functioning on a remote basis due to the effect of the pandemic and the resultant restrictive measures.

9. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the Additional Documents are relevant for adjudication of the present dispute as they directly relate to the claim of the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is necessary that the plaintiffs be permitted to bring the documents on record and such documents must be read as part and parcel of the record before this Court.

10. According to the plaintiffs, the examination of witnesses has not commenced in the proceedings. It was scheduled to co