SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1497

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N.RAY, J.
Shalby Limited - Appellant 
Versus
Dr. Dhiraj Marothi - Respondent 
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8507 of 2025
Decided on : 01-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR. G.H.VIRK WITH MR.S.H.VIRK with MR. JAGRAT SHAH with MR SIMRANJITSINGH H VIRK
For the Respondent: MR D K TRIVEDI

The court clarified that under the Commercial Courts Act, a party's failure to comply with document production orders may lead to adverse inferences and costs, while ensuring relevance is maintained in discovery requests.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rules 5 and 21 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - The Amendment provisions allow the court to draw adverse inferences for non-production of documents and impose costs - The plaintiff's compliance regarding document production was contested by the defendant, claiming failure to comply with prior court orders, invoking Order XI Rule 21. (Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Discovery and Interrogatories - The court clarified that the defendant's requests for discovery of documents and interrogatories beyond the scope of relevancy to the current suit were to be rejected, while allowing limited discovery regarding the plaintiff's compliance with prior orders. (Paragraphs 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The dispute arises from an application moved by the defendant for dismissal of the suit based on alleged non-compliance by the plaintiff with court orders regarding the production of documents related to their contractual agreement concerning medical services.

Findings of Court:
The court deemed the application under Order XI Rule 21 as misconceived; further evaluation regarding compliance shall be determined at trial.

Issues: The main issues concerned the adequacy of the plaintiff’s compliance with previous orders regarding document production and the relevance of additional documents requested by the defendant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper disclosure of documents and the potential for drawing adverse inferences if compliance is insufficient, while clarifying the scope of relevance for discovery in the context of the ongoing suit.

Result: The application under Order XI Rule 21 was treated as an application under Order XI Rule 5, setting aside the previous order, with directions for the trial court to consider the application upon final disposal.

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we may note that, at the outset, the challenge to the judgment and order dated 19.04.2025 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in application at Exh. 46 filed by the defendant is on the premise that the provision of Order XI Rule 21 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) had wrongly been invoked by the Commercial Court in entertaining the application at Exh. 46 filed by the defendant under the said provision. Attention of the Court is invited to Section 16 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015, which reads as under:-

AMENDMENTS TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

16. Amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in its application to commercial disputes.—(1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) shall, in their application to any suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value, stand amended in the manner as specified in the Schedule.

(2) The Commercial Division and Commercial Court shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, in the trial of a suit in respect of a commercial dispute of a Specified Value.

(3) Where any provision of any Rule of the jurisdictional High Court or any amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), by the State Government is in conflict with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), as amended by this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by this Act shall prevail.

2. The schedule under Section 16 amended Order XI of the CPC contained in the schedule to the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT , 2015 further reads as under:-

ORDER XI

DISCLOSURE, DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS IN SUITS BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL DIVISION OF A HIGH COURT OR A COMMERCIAL COURT

1. Disclosure and discovery of documents.—(1) Plaintiff shall file a list of all documents and photocopies of all documents, in its power, possession, control or custody, pertaining to the suit, along with the plaint, including:—

(a) documents referred to and relied on by the plaintiff in the plaint;

(b) documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings, in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, as on the date of filing the plaint, irrespective of whether the same is in support of or adverse to the plaintiff’s case;

(c) nothing in this Rule shall apply to documents produced by plaintiffs and relevant only––

(i) for the cross-examination of the defendant’s witnesses, or (ii) in answer to any case set-up by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the plaint, or (iii) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.

(2) The list of documents filed with the plaint shall specify whether the documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff are originals, office copies or photocopies and the list shall also set out in brief, details of parties to each document, mode of execution, issuance or receipt and line of custody of each document.

(3) The plaint shall contain a declaration on oath from the plaintiff that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by him have been disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that the plaintiff does not have any other documents in its power, possession, control or custody.

Explanation.––A declaration on oath under this sub-rule shall be contained in the Statement of Truth as set out in the Appendix.

(4) In case of urgent filings, the plaintiff may seek leave to rely on additional documents, as part of the above declaration on oath and subject to grant of such leave by Court, the plaintiff shall file such additional documents in Court, within thirty days of filing the suit, along with a declaration on oath that the plaintiff has produced all the documents in i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top