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.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The order dated 26th September 2022, passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Courts) in CS (Comm) 218/2021 (Md. Islamuddin v. S.S. Kapoor) under challenge in the present petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rejects an application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC"), seeking to place certain documents on record in addition to those filed by the petitioner as the plaintiff. The documents were carbon copies of three invoices dated 9th June 2018, 27th July 2018 and 30th December 2018, and one hand written document dated 4th January 2018 allegedly executed by the respondent-defendant containing what, according to the petitioner, amounted to the admission of liability on the respondents' part.

2. The respondent challenged the veracity and genuineness of the said documents.

3. The plaint, in the suit instituted by the petitioner against the respondent was filed in January 2021 and documents were filed along with the plaint. Written statement was filed by the defendant, issues were framed and recording of evidence commenced. At the stage of cross-examination of DW-1 the petitioner moved the application under Order VII Rule 14 of the CPC in which the impugned order has come to be passed.

4. At the outset, it may be noted that the application of the petitioner ought not to have filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC as the application was filed in a commercial suit. An application for additional documents, filed beyond 30 days of institution of a commercial suit, is required to be filed under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Kumar @ S. Baliyan v. Vinay Kumar G.B., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 734, has held that an application for additional documents filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, though filed under the wrong provision, is entitled to be treated as an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act. As such, the objection, in the impugned order of the learned Commercial Court, to that effect, has no substance.

5. Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act reads as under:

"(5) The plaintiff shall not be allowed to rely on documents, which were in the plaintiff's power, possession, control or custody and not disclosed along with plaint or within the extended period set out above, save and except by leave of Court and such leave shall be granted only upon the plaintiff establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure along with the plaint."

6. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to an order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Hassad Food Company Q.S.C. v. Bank of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10647, wherein the coordinate bench of this Court, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in Madanlal v. Shyamlal, 2002 (1) SCC 535, has held that the words "reasonable cause" employed in Order XI Rule 1 (5) of the CPC as requiring a liberal construction, with the latitude of the expression being wider than the expression "good cause" which, in turn, is wider than the expression "sufficient cause".

7. The application filed by the petitioner is short, and the relevant passages thereof may be reproduced thus:

"1. That the plaintiff has filed the present suit which is pending before this Hon'ble Court and fixed for evidence on 02.09.2022.

2. That the present case is prepared and filed during the COVID-19 pandemic and due to such situation the counsel for the plain