JUDGMENT :

The instant application has been filed by the defendants in the suit seeking leave of the Court to produce additional documents under Order XI Rule 1 Sub Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as 'CPC' for brevity).

2. The respondents/plaintiffs herein filed the above suit seeking declaration that applicants/defendants are 'Money Lenders' as defined under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act, 1957 and only entitled to charge interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the money borrowed by respondents under Simple Mortgaged Deed dated 16.04.2012. The respondents also sought for redemption of mortgage and other reliefs. They also sought for a declaration that subsequent Mortgage Deed dated 13.03.2020 executed between the applicants and respondents was null and void. The trial in the suit had already commenced and evidence on the side of the respondents/plaintiffs was over.

3. At present, the suit is in the stage of DW.1 cross. In the affidavit filed in support of this application, it was stated by the applicants that they sought to mark certain certificates issued by their Auditor and the same was opposed by the respondents on the ground that those documents had not been filed along with their written statement. It was asserted by the applicants that four Chartered Accountants' Certificates sought to be marked by the applicants were filed before this Court along with the Application Nos.1014 and 1015 of 2022 by way of separate typed-set of papers and hence, the documents cannot be termed as the one which are being introduced afresh.

4. It was also averred that copies of documents were already served on the learned counsel for respondents and those documents had been referred to by both the parties during arguments of Interlocutory Application.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants mainly submitted that though the documents in question were not filed technically along with written statement of the applicants, the same was filed during enquiry in Application Nos.1014 and 1015 of 2022 almost at the same time when written statement was filed. The learned counsel submitted that inadvertently the documents were not included in the list of documents filed along with written statement and by marking these documents, the copies of which were already filed before this Court in interlocutory stage would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. Accordingly, he prayed for allowing of the application.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs mainly opposed this application on the ground that the applicants/defendants failed to incorporate the declaration on oath as mandated under Order XI Rule 9 of CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter called as 'CC Act' for brevity) and hence, it is not open to the applicants to maintain this application that too after examination of plaintiffs' side witness. The learned Senior Counsel by taking this Court to the provisions of Order 6 Rule 15(A) Sub Rule 4 and 5 submitted that when written statement of the applicants herein is not verified by the affidavit or statement of oath in the form prescribed, the applicants shall not be permitted to rely on such pleading. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Court is entitled to strike out the written statement of the applicants as it is not verified by an affidavit as prescribed.

7. A perusal of the records would disclose that copies of documents which are sought to be marked by the applicants now were produced in the typed-set of papers dated 24.03.2022 filed in A.Nos.1014 and 1015 of 2022. The written statement in the suit was filed by the applicants on 02.03.2023. The copies of documents in question were filed by way of typed-set of papers in the above said interlocutory applications on 24.03.2022. Therefore, it is clear that the documents were not filed along with written statement as contended by the applicants. However, the present application has been filed