Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Parasvnath Developers Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's motion for additional documents contested by defendant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background on construction project and deficiencies. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. rules on disclosure of documents under cpc. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. plaintiff's letters addressing construction deficiencies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. court's analysis of contract's dispute resolution clause. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. subsequent report from cbri considered for admissibility. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 7. court's stance on reasonable cause for non-disclosure. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. evaluating payments and costs relative to the case. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. court allows additional documents relevant to plaintiff's claims. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 10. no prejudice to defendant; documents deemed admissible. (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. application to place additional documents allowed with costs. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
JUDGMENT :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
I.A. 29387/2025 (Application under Order XI Rule 1(5) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave of this Court to bring on record a total of eight ad
The court affirmed that additional documents may be permitted if they were discovered after the initial filing and that establishing reasonable cause for non-disclosure is less stringent than for oth....
The Commercial Courts Act mandates strict disclosure obligations, requiring all documents to be submitted at the outset. Late submissions necessitate a clear justification for non-disclosure, which w....
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.
The court established that mere reference to documents in a written statement does not satisfy the requirement of 'reasonable cause' for late submission under the amended Civil Procedure Rules.
Order XI Rule 1(7) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, casts an obligation on defendant to file all documents in its power, possession, control or custody.
The court held that lack of coordination between the plaintiff's director and legal counsel constituted reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents, allowing their introduction in evidence.
Procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice; reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents must be interpreted liberally to ensure fair adjudication.
(1) After Order XI Rule 1 has been amended with respect to suits before commercial courts and a specific provision/procedure has been prescribed with respect to suits before commercial division and b....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
