Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, J.
M/s. Capital Retreat Private Limited, Represented By Its Chairman, Rajmohan, S/o. Gangadharan – Petitioner
Versus
Gopakumar Balakrishnan Nair, S/o. Late Balakrishnan Nair – Respondent
OP(C) No. 1760 of 2025
Decided On : 06-08-2025
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that the inherent powers under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) allow the court to accept relevant documents for a case, even if procedural provisions are misquoted or not strictly followed (!) (!) .
The application for production of documents was filed under Order 7 Rule 14(2) of CPC, but the court noted that the relief cannot be denied solely because of quoting the wrong procedural provision, especially when the court can invoke its inherent powers (!) (!) .
The court found that procedural missteps, such as quoting incorrect provisions, do not automatically render the application or order invalid, provided the court's inherent powers are invoked appropriately (!) .
The court allowed production of 12 documents deemed relevant, while rejecting others as irrelevant, thereby modifying the original order (!) (!) .
The court considered whether the documents were within the custody, control, or power of the plaintiff at the time of filing the suit. It concluded that certain documents, such as company resolutions and documents obtained under RTI, were not within the plaintiff’s custody or control and therefore could be produced at a later stage (!) (!) .
The court observed that some court proceedings and court records, being part of the court's records, are not considered suit documents for the purpose of proving the plaintiff’s case and should not be allowed as evidence in this context (!) .
The court clarified that the production of documents at a belated stage does not automatically imply that such documents are within the control or possession of the plaintiff at the time of filing, especially when those documents are obtained from external sources like RTI or are court proceedings (!) (!) .
The order was partly modified to permit the production of only those 12 documents that are relevant and within the control or possession of the plaintiff, rejecting the remaining documents as irrelevant court records (!) (!) .
Overall, the court highlighted the importance of relevancy and the control over documents in the production process, emphasizing that the primary consideration is whether the documents are relevant and within the party’s custody at the relevant time (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the argument that the application was not maintainable under the relevant procedural provisions or that the petition under Article 227 was barred, affirming the court’s inherent powers to allow such applications (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges production of documents in a suit. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's arguments against document production. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's analysis on maintainability of the petition. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court modifies order regarding document production. (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
This petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant by challenging the order dated 16.07.2025 passed in IA No.30/2025 in CS No.73/2021 for having allowed the application filed by the plaintiff for production of documents under order 7 Rule 14 (2)of CPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent at length.
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was the defendant in the Commercial Suit filed by the respondent in CS No.73/21, for realisation of money on the ground he said to be a consultant of the the respondent company are entitled for 4% of the project cost. Accordingly, the Suit came to be filed where the defendant was notified later he has not appeared and he was placed ex parte. Thereafter, he has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte and also to condone the delay in filing the application and filing the written statement. All the three IAs were dismissed by the commercial Court. Subsequently the petitioner approached this Court by challenging the order. However the High Court allowed the application for setting aside the ex parte. However, denied the request of filing of the written statement as it is beyond 120 days. The petitioner also said to be approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein he suffered order that the petitioner was not able to file the written statement. Subsequently, the respondent said to be filed a proof affidavit along with proof affidavit he filed an application IA 30/25 under Order 7 Rule 14(2) of CPC along with 24 documents. Where the petitioner raised an objection to receive the documents. Ultimately the trial court allowed the application by the impugned order dated 16.07.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the very application filed by the plaintiff under order 7 Rule 14 (2) is not maintainable, he has quoted wrong provision. The application filed under order 11 Rule 4 & 5 of CPC and he has to show sufficient cause for non production of those documents along with the plaint even on perusal of the documents produced by him along with the plaintiff only 4 documents but all of a sudden he has produced 24 documents after four years of filing the suit which is impermissible under the order 11 Rule 1 of CPC and order 7 Rule 14 is not applicable to the commercial suit as per Section 16 of the Commercial Court Act and he also contended that the plaintiff not made sufficient cause for non production of the documents which is not in his power, control and possession. Therefore allowing the documents is not correct. It is also brought to the notice that the very respondent counsel appeared on behalf of the company for filing the writ petition, in favour of the company where an order also obtained in the writ petition on behalf of the company and those documents are within the custody of the very plaintiff which was not produced along with this Suit and other documents especially Ext.P11 to 24 are the proceedings of the same commercial court which is not relevant documents. The Document No.1 to 9 are within the custody and control of the plaintiff and insists prior to the filing of the suit, at the same was not produced therefore these documents shall not be permitted to produce. Without leave of the Court and leave should be sought within 30 days from the filing of suit is not permissible after four years of filing of suit. Therefore the order under challenge is to be set aside and prayed for allowing the petition.
5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the hon’ble supreme Court reported in 2021 KHC online 646
The inherent powers of the court allow the acceptance of documents essential for a case, even if procedural provisions are misquoted, prioritizing access to relevant evidence.
Procedural violations should not impede justice, and courts must favor substantial justice over rigid adherence to rules, particularly when no prejudice to the opposing party has been demonstrated.
Order XI Rule 1(c)(ii) of the CPC permits document production to counter claims made by defendants, allowing flexibility in commercial suits.
In commercial litigation, negligence or inadvertence does not constitute 'reasonable cause' for late document disclosure; strict adherence to procedural timelines is mandatory under the Commercial Co....
The court emphasized strict adherence to procedural timelines in commercial disputes, concluding that introducing additional documents post-evidence closure undermines the intent of the Commercial Co....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to establish reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents and the court's role in determining the sufficiency....
A defendant may produce documents at a later stage in civil proceedings if a bona fide explanation for the delay is provided, and no surprise is caused to the opposing party.
In commercial suits, the non-submission of original documents and Statement of Truth at the time of filing cannot be rectified by later production.
The Court affirmed the discretion of the Commercial Court to allow production of original documents when essential for proper adjudication, emphasizing limited grounds for interference under Article ....
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
