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.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The impugned order dated 7th May, 2022, passed by the learned District Judge, Commercial Court ("the learned Commercial Court") in CS(Comm) 185/2021 (Mahesh Prefab Pvt. Ltd. v. The Great Gatsby Club of India), dismisses the application of the petitioner (the respondent before the learned Commercial Court) under Order VIII Rule 1(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and also closes defence evidence.

2. Both these decisions are assailed by the petitioner.

3. Given the nature of the dispute, no detailed reference to the assertions in the plaint, wherefrom the present proceedings emanate, is necessary. A brief overview would suffice.

4. The respondent filed CS(Comm) 185/2021 against the petitioner, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 27,49,698/-.

5. It was alleged that the petitioner had awarded work order dated 23rd April 2015 and supply order dated 3rd September 2015 to the respondent for supply and erection of certain panels at the petitioner's site at Delhi and that, despite the respondent having successfully completed the assignment, the petitioner was in default of payment required to be made to the respondent against the work executed by it. On this basis, as already noted, the suit sought a decree, against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent, for Rs. 27,49,698/-.

6. The suit was filed as a commercial suit, under the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, where under an application for permission to place certain additional documents on record was moved.

7. Paras 3 to 7 of the said application, which set out the justification for the said prayers, read thus:

"3. The Defendant for just adjudication of the present lis craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to bring on record the following documents.

(i) Current Statement of account which reveals that an amount of Rs. 14,89,068/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty-Nine Thousand Sixty Eight Only) was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

(ii) Debit note vide which Rs. 14,89,068/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Eighty-Nine Thousand Sixty Eight Only) was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

4. It is submitted that the above stated document could not be filed along with the Written statement as the management of the Defendant society was taken up by the current management in the year 2019 and the documents were not collated at the time of filling of reply. Thereafter, the outbreak of Novel Corona virus made situation worst from worse.

5. It is submitted that the Defendant since day one has maintained the stand that as per the statement of accounts maintained by the Defendant it is the Plaintiff Company who owes a liability to pay an amount of Rs.2,42,481/- (Rupees Two Lakh Forty-Two Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty- One Only) to the Defendant as the balance amount in the execution of the work. The said fact echoes in the written statement as well as in the examination of Plaintiff's witness.

6. It is submitted that by filling the above stated documents no additional fact or development is brought up by the Defendant as such the suit will not move in reverse direction. It is further submitted the matter is still at the stage of Defendants Evidence and so the defendant may be permitted to place on record the above stated documents7 to lead the Defendant's Evidence for proper and just adjudication of the Suit.

7. It is submitted that if the present Applicati