Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
Goodearth Bricks Pvt Ltd – Petitioner
versus
Movie Time Cinema Pvt Ltd - Respondent
CM(M) 223 of 2025
Decided on : 04-02-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the application to produce additional documents due to the petitioner's failure to show sufficient cause for the delay, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 14(3) and Order 11 Rule 1 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Dismissal of application to produce additional documents - Petitioner failed to provide sufficient cause for not filing crucial documents earlier, which were in their possession - The trial court rightly refused to exercise discretion to allow additional evidence. (Paras 5, 9, 15)
(B) Procedural Justice - The procedural rules are intended to ensure substantive justice; however, failure to comply with the prescribed procedures cannot be overlooked. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a private limited company, engaged in civil construction, sought to produce additional documents related to a contract for interior work at a mall after the respondent denied the contract's conclusion. The trial court dismissed the application for lack of sufficient cause for the delay in filing.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's refusal to allow the additional documents was justified as no sufficient cause was shown for their late submission.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner provided sufficient cause for not filing the documents earlier and the applicability of procedural rules under the CPC in commercial suits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner did not establish sufficient cause for the late submission of documents, and the trial court's discretion was rightly exercised in refusing to allow the additional evidence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
CM APPL. 6854/2025 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 223/2025
1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 05.11.2024, whereby, the application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC, passed in CS (Comm.) No. 647/2023 was dismissed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court)-05, Saket Courts, Delhi.
2. Petitioner is a private limited company, engaged in civil construction, interior works and designing. Respondent company required interior construction work for their project at MT Sky Mall, Hyderabad. After discussion, a Work Order was issued in March 2021 and the petitioner began mobilizing the workers and materials. However, due to the respondent’s failure to adhere to the terms of the agreement, petitioner had to halt the work in May 2021.
3. Petitioner filed a recovery suit in November 2023. Respondent denied the contract’s conclusion and claimed that petitioner had not mobilized or executed the work.
4. Petitioner filed an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) CPC, stating that some crucial documents (pictures of the site and invoice of the materials, GST Record, evidencing the execution of the work at the site, later retrieved through Google Pictures) were not filed, and therefore, sought permission to place the same on record.
5. The application was dismissed by the learned trial court observing that no sufficient cause has been assigned for not placing the said documents earlier on record, and therefore, the same cannot be taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the documents inadvertently left out include copies of certain documents for the material purchased for the site along with photographs of the site taken during the execution of the work which were reported by the Site Supervisor to the petitioner’s head office via Whats App. It is submitted that these documents are crucial documents directly related to the dispute and are necessary for just determination of the case.
7. It has been further submitted that exclusion of the documents would cause great prejudice to the petitioner, thereby, defeating the ends of justice.
8. It is also submitted that procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure [“CPC”] are intended to ensure substantive justice and the exclusion of the documents in the present case would amount to elevating procedural technicalities over substantive justice, thereby defeating the very purpose of fair adjudication.
9. At the outset, it is to be noted that the application for leave to produce additional documents was preferred by the petitioner herein (plaintiff) under Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC. However, considering Order 11 Rule 1 as applicable to commercial suits by which, the Code of Civil Procedure has been amended with respect to the suits before the Commercial Court and in view of Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act, Order 7 Rule 14(3) CPC shall have no application at all. After Order 11 Rule 1 has been amended with respect to the suits before the Commercial Courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to the suit before the commercial Court, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, as has been amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 have to be followed. Therefore, Order 11 Rule 1 as amended by the amendment in the Commercial Courts Act with respect to the suits before the Commercial Courts, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14(3) shall not be applicable at all. Therefore, as such, petitioner applied the wrong provision seeking leave of the Court to place on record additional documents. However, considering the fact that substantial relief claimed remains the same, the application was treated as having been moved under Order 11 Rule 1(4) and (5) CPC by the trial court.
10. Order 11 Rule 1 CPC mandates the plaintiff to file a list of documents, photocopies of all documents in its power, possession, control or cu
