Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Shalinder Kaur, J.
Sudhir Power Project Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Prime Meiden Pvt. Ltd . - Respondent
CM(M) 1376 of 2023
Decided On : 11-03-2024
Additional Documents - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII Rule 1A(3) - [CPC] - [Order VIII Rule 1A(3)] - The court discussed the relevance of allowing additional documents at a belated stage and cited precedents to support the petitioner's claim. The court allowed the letter dated 08.07.2022 to be taken on record, citing the petitioner's explanation for the delay and the absence of prejudice to the respondent. However, the request to include the admission/denial affidavit was denied as the case was already at the stage of evidence recording.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to place additional documents on record after the trial court dismissed their application under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC. The documents included a letter dated 08.07.2022 and an affidavit of admission/denial. The dispute arose from the respondent's failure to adhere to the terms of purchase orders, leading to liquidated damages incurred by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the letter dated 08.07.2022 to be taken on record, citing the petitioner's explanation for the delay and the absence of prejudice to the respondent. However, the request to include the admission/denial affidavit was denied as the case was already at the stage of evidence recording.
Issues: The main issue was whether the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioner at a belated stage could be allowed, specifically the letter dated 08.07.2022 and the admission/denial affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the letter dated 08.07.2022 was explained by the petitioner and did not cause prejudice to the respondent, thus allowing it to be taken on record. However, the request to include the admission/denial affidavit was denied as the case was already at the stage of evidence recording.
Final Decision: The court allowed the letter dated 08.07.2022 to be taken on record but denied the request to include the admission/denial affidavit, as the case was already at the stage of evidence recording.
JUDGMENT
Shalinder Kaur, J. - The present petition arises out of the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial) - 03, South-East, Saket Courts, Delhi (hereinafter as "Trial Court") in suit bearing no. CS(COMM) 318/2020 titled as "M/s Prime Meiden Limited vs M/s Sudhir Power Projects Limited" whereby the learned trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter as "CPC") for taking on record additional documents i.e. (i) letter dated 08.07.2022 issued by HSIIDC and (ii) affidavit of admission/denial filed by the petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial court. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said proceedings.
2. The limited issue arising out of the present petition revolves around whether the documents sought to be placed on record by the petitioner i.e. a letter dated 08.07.2022 which was issued after filing of the written statement and the affidavit of admission and denial can be allowed at a later stage.
3. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, with its registered office at International Trade Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi, 110005, is engaged in the business of manufacturing, testing etc, of the silent Diesel Generator Sets, etc.
4. Conversely, the respondent is a Company engaged in the business of manufacturing of Industrial Electrical Transformers.
5. The petitioner asserts that on 20.05.2014, it placed two purchase orders bearing numbers 6311 & 6312 upon the Respondent for supply of 12.5 MVA, 50 Hz, 33/11KV Delta/Star, Vector Group Dyn11, amongst other things and provided specifications as per Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (hereinafter as "HSIIDC") requirements, the end customer of the petitioner.
6. Disputes arose between the parties during the course of business in view of the respondent's failure to adhere to the terms stipulated in the purchase orders, causing delays in the work order assigned by the petitioner's end customer HSIIDC. Consequently, the petitioner incurred liquidated damages amounting to 10% of the contract value from HSIIDC. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, the respondent was liable to bear this liability. Thereafter, the petitioner invoked bank guarantees furnished by the respondent on 24.10.2017. As a response, the respondent filed a suit for injunction along with an application for interim relief seeking to restrain the petitioner from invoking bank guarantee, which came to be dismissed by the court of first instance and also by the appellate court in appeal.
7. Subsequent thereto, the respondent filed a suit before the learned trial court on 22.10.2020 for recovery of Rs. 48,90,000 in liquidated damages against the Petitioner. Pre-mediation was sought by the parties after the suit was filed. Upon receiving the summons, the petitioner filed its written statement on 29.04.2022 pleading the imposition of liquidated damages albeit without submitting supporting documents.
8. Thereafter, respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint, which was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2023 after which an amended written statement was filed by the petitioner on 25.03.2023. Issues were framed and parties were directed to appear before the appointed Local Commissioner to record the evidence vide orders dated 27.03.2023 and 06.04.2023, respectively.
9. Thereafter, the letter dated 08.07.2022 from HSIIDC imposing liquidates damages and the affidavit of admission/denial were subsequently discovered to be not on record during the cross-examination before the local commissioner on 12.05.2023. To remedy the situation, petitioner filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1A (3) CPC to place the aforesaid document on record. The respondent filed its reply to the said application and vide the impugned order the learned trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the
The court emphasized the importance of allowing additional documents at a belated stage if the delay is explained and does not cause prejudice to the opposing party.
The absence of sufficient explanation in the application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC, 1908, and the lack of clarification or version of the petitioner/defendant in the written statement led t....
The Court's decision emphasized that the documents sought to be placed on record were already referred to in the plaint, and the defendants had sufficient opportunity to deal with them, justifying th....
Matters of procedure should not hinder the dispensation of justice, and the relevance of documents for just and fair adjudication should be considered when deciding on applications to bring documents....
The court emphasized the importance of providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to defend themselves and held that the refusal to take the documents on record by the Trial Court c....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between filing a written statement and bringing it on record, and the consequences of not filing an affidavit of admission/denial o....
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.
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
