The Court affirmed the discretion of the Commercial Court to allow production of original documents when essential for proper adjudication, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Article 227.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

CM No. 45328/2021 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

CAV 94/2021 & CAV 95/2021

3. Since counsel for the caveator/respondent no.1 enters appearance, caveat stands discharged.

CM(M) 1162/2021 & CM No. 45327/2021 (for stay)

4. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns orders passed by the Additional District Judge-01, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter `Commercial Court') in a commercial suit bearing CS(COMM) No.401/2019, being (i) order dated 28th September, 2021, whereby the application filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 (plaintiff in the suit) to bring original documents on record has been allowed subject to payment of cumulative costs of Rs.20,000/-; and (ii) order dated 16th November, 2021, whereby the said documents have been allowed to be exhibited by the Court.

5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are given hereinafter:

(i) The commercial suit for recovery of Rs.18,23,992/- with pendente lite and future interest was filed by the respondent no.1 in April, 2009 in respect of work orders awarded to the respondent no.1 by the petitioners (defendants no.1 and 2 in the suit) and alleging withholding of certain amounts by the petitioners.

(ii) Upon filing of written statement by the petitioners and respondent no.2/MTNL (defendant no.3 in the suit), issues were framed in the suit on 14th May, 2016.

(iii) The evidence of the respondent no.1 was closed in this case on 11th September, 2019.

(iv) An application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for discovery of documents from respondent no.2/MTNL was filed by the respondent no.1 on 14th October, 2019.

(v) On 19th October, 2019, evidence of petitioners was closed.

(vi) On 31st March, 2021 the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed as not pressed and on the same date, a fresh application was filed seeking production of certain original documents from respondent no.2/MTNL. The said application was opposed by the petitioners as well as respondent no. 2/MTNL by filing a reply.

6. The impugned order dated 28th September, 2021, while allowing the aforesaid application filed on behalf of respondent no.1, has observed that

(i) the documents sought to be brought on record was put to the witness of the petitioners who refused to answer the questions put forth by the respondent no.1 on the ground that the documents were photocopies. Hence, the respondent no. 1 had no option but to produce the originals of the said documents; (ii) the documents are essential for proper adjudication of the case; (iii) production of the documents would not prejudice the petitioners and the respondent no.2/MTNL and would cut short the controversy between the parties; and (iv) both petitioners as well as respondent no. 2/MTNL have been compensated by way of costs of Rs.10,000/- each.

7. Vide impugned order dated 16th November, 2021, the witnesses of respondent no. 2/MTNL, being PW2 and PW3, were examined in chief, the certified copies of the documents brought by them were exhibited and the matter was deferred for cross examination of the said witnesses.

8. The counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that (i) the respondent no.1 closed their evidence without reserving any right to lead rebuttal evidence; (ii) no liberty was taken by the respondent no.1 even after the petitioners' evidence, for leading rebuttal evidence; (iii) application under Order XI Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC filed by the respondent no.1 for discovery of documents from respondent no.2/MTNL was dismissed as not pressed; (iv) the