Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Shri Radha Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Smt. Shashi Sharma & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
M/s Tandoori Vibes Through Its Partner Md. Zainul – Respondent
CM(M) 1134 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Additional Documents - Commercial Suit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII, Order XI - Act of 2015 - [Order VIII, Order XI] - The court dismissed the petitioner's application for taking on record additional documents in a commercial suit, holding that the petitioner failed to show 'reasonable cause' for not filing the additional documents at the time of filing the written statement. The court emphasized that the documents were readily available to the petitioner and that the petitioner's plea of inadvertence and untraceable documents was not genuine. The court also found that the petitioner's reliance on the additional documents at a belated stage contradicted the declaration filed by the petitioner in the statement of truth accompanying the written statement.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a commercial suit seeking a decree against the petitioners for declaring a Franchise Agreement as void on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, and for recovery of money and damages. The petitioners filed an application for filing additional documents, which was dismissed by the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to show 'reasonable cause' for not filing the additional documents at the time of filing the written statement. The court also concluded that the petitioner's reliance on the additional documents at a belated stage contradicted the declaration filed by the petitioner in the statement of truth accompanying the written statement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had shown 'reasonable cause' for not filing the additional documents at the time of filing the written statement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that 'reasonable cause' within the meaning of Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC cannot extend to negligence in filing of documents before the court. The court emphasized that the documents were readily available to the petitioner and that the petitioner's plea of inadvertence and untraceable documents was not genuine.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending application.
Key Points: - The court held that "reasonable cause" cannot extend to negligence in filing of documents before the court; it must refer to a cause outside the control of the petitioner that prevented filing with the written statement. (!) - The petitioner failed to show reasonable cause for not filing the additional documents at the time of filing the written statement; the documents were readily available and could have been obtained from known sources (banker or third parties). (!) (!) (!) - Additional documents sought to be placed on record were largely in existence before the institution of the first suit and not "not traceable" as alleged; belated reliance at the stage of such proceedings was rejected. (!) (!) (!) - The Statement of Truth accompanying the written statement declared that all documents in the power/possession/control of the party had been disclosed; absence of any contrary averment supports rejection of late filing. (!) (!) - The High Court dismissed the petition seeking to place on record additional documents and disposed of the pending application. (!)
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 05.06.2023 passed by District Judge, Commercial Court-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (`Commercial Court') in CS (COM.) No. 151/2021 titled as Tandoori Vibes v. Shri Radhe Enterprises & Anr., whereby the Commercial Court dismissed the Petitioners application filed under Order VIII read with Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC'), as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (`the Act of 2015') filed on 05.06.2023 for taking on record additional documents.
1.1. The Petitioners herein are the defendants and the Respondents herein are the plaintiffs, in the commercial suit.
1.2. The Respondents herein filed a suit seeking decree against the Petitioners herein and in favour of the Respondents, for declaring the Franchise Agreement dated 30.03.2018 executed between the parties as void on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. In the said suit Respondents also sought a decree of recovery of Rs. 58,80,000/- and a decree of damages against the Petitioner No.1 for the loss of business opportunity on grounds of illegal consideration, fraud and misrepresentation.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that though the pleadings are complete in this matter, issues have not been framed in the suit. He states that on 13.10.2022 an application was filed by the Respondents under Order VII Rule 14 CPC for filing documents along with replication was allowed; and similarly on 14.12.2022 an application filed by the Petitioner herein under Order VIII CPC read with Order XI CPC as amended by the Act of 2015 for filing additional documents was also allowed.
2.1. He states that the additional documents, which are sought to be placed on record are necessary for proving the defence of the Petitioners and in this regard, he relies upon the pleas raised in preliminary objection no. 6 and in paragraph 6 of reply on merits in the written statement.
2.2. He states that though the written statement was filed on 04.10.2021 the additional documents could not be placed on record `inadvertently'. He states that some of the documents are old and were not traceable at the time of filing the written statement; and have been traced out recently.
3. The learned counsel for the Respondents has entered appearance and states that the application filed by the Petitioners on 05.06.2023, which is under consideration has not been filed in good faith.
3.1. He states that the Respondents herein had initially filed an ordinary civil suit on 26.10.2018 for recovery of monies along-with interest. He states that the Petitioners herein filed written statement in the 1st suit on 21.02.2019 and also filed counter claim in the said suit.
3.2. He states that the said 1st suit was withdrawn by the Respondents herein and a fresh plaint (2nd suit) was filed under the Act of 2015 in 2021 and the 2nd suit is a commercial suit governed by the provisions of Act of 2015 and the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Act of 2015 to apply to a commercial suit.
3.3. He states that in the commercial suit the Petitioner filed his written statement on 04.10.2021 along-with all the documents in support thereof. He states that the written statement was accompanied by the Statement of Truth, wherein the Petitioner as per the mandate of Order VI Rule 15A of CPC as amended by the Act of 2015 and Appendix-I of the Act of 2015, made the statutory declaration that all documents in their power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed and there is no other document in their power, possession, control or custody.
3.4. He states that, however, it is a matter of record that Petitioners thereafter filed an application for filing additional documents under Order VI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'reasonable cause' for not filing additional documents cannot extend to negligence in filing of documents before the court, and that the docum....
Parties in commercial disputes must timely disclose documents; late submissions require a compelling justification to avoid prejudicing the opposing party.
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 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 court affirmed that documents not disclosed with the written statement in commercial cases cannot be admitted, but contradictory decisions on evidence closure were ruled unsustainable.
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
The court confirmed that documents arising after the submission of written statement may be included without showing reasonable cause for non-disclosure, emphasizing the importance of procedural just....
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
