Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. - Plaintiff
Versus
Ms Parasvnath Developers Ltd. - Defendant
CS(COMM) 463 of 2022 & I.A. 29387 of 2025
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| 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 additional documents, as filed along with the replication and Evidence Affidavits of its witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2.
2. The present application has been opposed by the defendant, thereby, raising the objection that the additional documents have been filed without seeking leave of the Court, and that the present application has been filed belatedly, after the said issue was pointed out at the time of tendering of the evidence.
3. The defendant has further averred that the plaintiff has failed to put forth any plausible explanation for seeking leave of this Court to file additional documents at such a belated stage. It is submitted that if the proposed additional documents were to be taken on record, it would relegate the proceedings to the stage of pleadings, and hamper the commencement of trial.
4. At the outset, it is to be noted that as per the facts on record, plaintiff had issued a Notice Inviting Tender in the year 2009 for the construction of three blocks of staff quarters, i.e., blocks A, B and C, with a combined capacity of 144 dwelling units at Mundka Depot for Phase II of Delhi MRTS Project. Subsequently, a Letter of Acceptance was issued to the defendant on 27th May, 2009, followed by the execution of a Contract Agreement dated 28th August, 2009, between the parties.
5. The defendant started the construction of the blocks in question in 2009, and subsequently, the three blocks, i.e., blocks A, B and C were taken over by the plaintiff on 05th October, 2012, 10th November, 2012 and 03rd December, 2012, respectively. The flats constructed by the defendant were allotted and taken over by the employees of the plaintiff between March- May, 2013 and around 140 number of families, were residing in the project in question.
6. As per the case put forth by the plaintiff, immediately after the occupation of the flats, multiple sewage problems were observed by the residents, in a number of flats in all the three blocks. On being informed about the said sewage problems, the defendant attended to few issues, however, failed to rectify most of such issues, and such problems persisted at the site in question. In addition to this, various structural cracks started appearing in the blocks in question. As per the plaintiff, the sewage problems and the cracks in the building are attributable to poor quality of construction material used by the defendant.
7. Thus, as per the plaintiff, it engaged services of various agencies for technical assistance. In particular, the plaintiff engaged the services of Shri Ram Institute for carrying out investigations, by conducting various technical tests to ascertain the strength of the structure built by defendant, and the services of M/s Epicon Consultants Pvt. Ltd., for carrying out detailed structural assessment of the project in
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
