The court established that non-filing of documents due to negligence does not constitute reasonable cause for allowing additional evidence under the CPC.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The impugned order dated 24th February, 2022 rejects an application under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), filed by the petitioner, as the defendant before the learned District Judge (Commercial Court) ("the Commercial Court", hereinafter) in CS (Comm) 294/2019 (Anuj Textiles v. Bela Creations Pvt. Ltd.), with costs of Rs.5000.

2. CS (Comm) 294/2019 was filed by the respondent-Anuj Textiles against the petitioner. The respondent claimed to have supplied fabric to the petitioner during the period 4th August, 2017 to 20th June, 2018, against which an amount of Rs.56.64,846/- was alleged to be due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent. The suit, therefore, sought a decree, in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner for Rs.56,64,846/- along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing the suit till the realisation of the amount and costs.

3. The petitioner filed a written statement and a counter claim in response to the suit of the respondents, accompanied by a statement of truth.

4. This was followed by two affidavits of witnesses whose evidence the petitioner desired to lead, in support of the written statement as well as the counter claim. Additionally, the petitioner also filed an application under Order VII Rule 14(3)¹ of the CPC to take on record certain additional documents.

5. The impugned order dismisses the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, against which the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The prayer for permission to take on record the invoices sought to be introduced under the application under Order VII Rule 14 was that no invoices had been reflected in the list of documents filed with the written statement and counter claim and that, though there was a reference to the aforesaid invoices, the invoices themselves were not annexed thereto. The invoices which were now being sought to be placed on record, it was contended, were reflected in the GST returns which were already filed by the petitioner as well as in the ledger account of the respondent.

7. The plea for taking on record additional documents was sought to be founded on the contention that the Counsel, in the law firm which was prosecuting the case on behalf of the petitioner had left the law firm during COVID and that the main Counsel of the law firm was not aware of the fact that the original invoices had not been filed. It was only during the cross examination of PW1 on 2nd December, 2021, contended the petitioner, that the fact of non-filing of the invoices came to light. Inasmuch as the invoices found reference in the GST returns already filed by the petitioner, it was sought to be contended that the prayer for permission to file the invoices was required to be allowed.

8. The learned Commercial Court has, in rejecting the aforesaid application under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the CPC, filed by the petitioner, noted the fact that, in para 6 of the statement of truth accompanying the written statement filed in response to the plaint, the director of the petitioner had solemnly affirmed to having filed all documents in his possession, power and control and that he had no other documents in his power or possession. That being so, in the absence of any averment that the invoices which were being sought to be introduced under cover of the application under Order VII Rule 14(3) were not in the power or possession of the petitioner at the time of filing the statement of truth, the learned Commercial Court held that the petitioner could not, at a belated stage, seek to introduce the said docum