The COVID-19 pandemic created extraordinary circumstances justifying the acceptance of additional documents beyond standard filing timelines under the CPC's provisions.

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (ORAL)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. The petitioner by way of present petition challenges the order dated 16.07.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the application under Order 11 Rule 1 sub Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as `CPC') and permitted the respondent/Plaintiff to place on record additional documents.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the provisions of Order 11 (1) (4) of the CPC to submit that the Language employed in the said clause would circumscribe the power of the plaintiff as well as the Court to permit such of those documents which accompany suits which are in the nature of `urgent filing' and additionally, that the declaration ought to be made clearly in the statement of truth which is to accompany the suit.

3. Learned counsel also emphasises on the time limit prescribed of 30 days in sub-rule 4 to emphasise that the respondent/plaintiff ought to have taken steps within the time limit prescribed in clause 4. The respondent, not having done that, the Trial Court had no authority to grant any relief.

4. In order to buttress the arguments regarding `urgent filing', learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the language employed in Section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, specially to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 A to impress upon this Court that word used `urgent interim relief' in the sub-Section would have to be read in-consonance with the words employed in sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1of Order 11 of the CPC.

5. Learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to the Chapter 10 of the Delhi High Court Rules relating to Interlocutory Applications to Rule 4, which is in respect of urgent listing, again to emphasise that the applicability of order 11 Rule 1 sub-Rule 4 of the CPC would have to be construed only and only if the suit filed is of an urgent nature.

6. Learned counsel submits that since the instant suit is a simple recovery suit, the same would not fall within the four corners of sub-Rule 4 of Rule 1 of Order 11 of the CPC. Learned counsel emphasises on the language which has been employed in Order 11 (1) (4) of the CPC, to submit that the additional documents ought to have been mentioned in the statement of truth and then subsequently, leave ought to have been taken from the Court.

7. Learned counsel submits that in the present case, the documents sought to be placed on record are conspicuous by their absence in the statement of truth and, therefore, the question of taking leave thereon does not arise at all.

8. Learned counsel submits that the only reason why the learned Trial Court had allowed the placement of additional documents on record, is the consideration of the extension of limitation as per the orders of the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) 3/2020 dated 10.01.2022, whereby the extension of time was granted up till February, 2022. This, learned counsel submits, would neither be a reasonable cause nor could it have been considered as such, since the basic ingredient which was concomitant to allow the application was missing.

9. Learned counsel also submits that it is not the case of the respondent that the documents were not in the possession of the respondent at the time of filing of the suit. In fact, it is admitted that the documents were very much in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff even at the time of filing the suit.

10. In that view of the matter, learned counsel submits that the application could not have been and ought not to have been allowed and prays for quashing of the impugned order.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff submits that it is trite that the Civil Courts ought to consider the contents of the application rather than the nomenclatur